# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 10, 1999 · 84 Ohio St. 3d 489

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6778787

## Case

- **Full name:** Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 10, 1999
- **Citations:** 84 Ohio St. 3d 489; 705 N.E.2d 667
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
- **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/6778787

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. On review of the record, we find that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(l) and 5-107(A)(2) as found by the board. In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148 , 699 N.E.2d 40 , we imposed a one-year suspension on one of the outside counsel who participated in this scheme. We believe that the same sanction is appropriate for respondent. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur,
Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6778787. Public record. Not legal advice.