Opinion

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Naumoff

  • 62 Ohio St. 3d 72
  • 578 N.E.2d 452
  • 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2287
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 16, 1991
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 79.8%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand. However, we refuse to allow six months more to pass before Stidd is repaid the $12,344.30 he was overcharged. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 2-106(A) and (B), and ordered to make restitution within sixty days of the date of our order. If respondent fails to meet this deadline, he is to be immediately suspended from the practice of law in Ohio until such time as restitution is made. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Wright, J., dissents.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.