Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

  • 86 Ohio St. 3d 104
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 7, 1999
Status
Published
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 57.3%

adopting the board’s recommendations based on the parties’ stipulations and agreed waiver of hearing

How later courts described this case

  • adopting the board’s recommendations based on the parties’ stipulations and agreed waiver of hearing

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of the board. Because the parties stipulated to the violations, we also adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 3-101(B) and Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E) and VI(6)(B), despite the fact that respondent was not charged with the violation of these rules in the disciplinary complaint with respect to his Pike County representation. We deem that respondent’s review of and consent to the stipulated facts and the stipulated violations, and his agreed waiver of a hearing, satisfied the due process requirements of In re Ruffalo (1968), 390 U.S. 544, 550-551 , 88 S.Ct. 1222, 1226 , 20 L.Ed.2d 117, 122-123 , as to these findings and conclusions. We also adopt the *106 recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, 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.