# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 15, 1986 · 21 Ohio St. 3d 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759122

## Case

- **Full name:** Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 15, 1986
- **Citations:** 21 Ohio St. 3d 108; 21 Ohio B. 400; 488 N.E.2d 180; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 538
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759122

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
It is well-established by this court that embezzlement of funds is demonstrative of sufficient moral turpitude to justify disbarment. Bar Assn. v. McGarry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 168 [ 14 O.O.3d 406 ]; Lake County Bar Assn. v. Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93 [ 70 O.O.2d 173 ]. Such a determination, however, is neither lightly nor automatically imposed. See, e.g., Reinstatement of Rasor (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 25 [ 69 O.O.2d 127 ] (mitigating circumstances offered with a finding that petitioner had rehabilitated himself to justify readmission to the bar).
In the present cause respondent’s apparent reluctance to offer mitigation on his own behalf, or to appear before the panel, does not help his position. A review of the record supports the board’s findings and recommendation which we adopt in their totality.
It is the judgment of this court that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759122. Public record. Not legal advice.