# Toledo Bar Ass'n v. McGill

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 16, 1992 · 64 Ohio St. 3d 669

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765432

## Case

- **Full name:** Toledo Bar Association v. McGill Toledo Bar Association v. Leizerman
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 16, 1992
- **Citations:** 64 Ohio St. 3d 669; 597 N.E.2d 1104; 1992 Ohio LEXIS 1950
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moyer
- **Judges:** Brown, Bryant, Douglas, Holmes, Moyek, Moyer, Only, Resnick, Sweeney, Tenth, Wright
- **Cited by:** 5 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/6765432

## Opinion text

Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion and would adopt the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline that respondents be suspended for six months and that the suspen *672 sion be stayed on the condition that they engage in no further conduct that constitutes a violation of DR 5-103(B).
The majority has sanctioned respondents with a public reprimand apparently because the majority believes that DR 5-103(B) “should perhaps be reexamined.” While I do not disagree with the majority’s conclusion in that respect, I do disagree with the majority’s conclusion that because we believe that a Disciplinary Rule should be reviewed and perhaps be amended in the future, such possibility of re-examination constitutes a valid reason to reduce a sanction for past conduct that clearly violates the existing rule.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6765432. Public record. Not legal advice.