Opinion

In re Cvammen

  • 102 Ohio St. 3d 13
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 14, 2004
Status
Published
Author
Stratton
On the bench
Connor, Donnell, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
9 cases

The opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 23} I dissent from the majority’s opinion. I would permit the applicant to register as a candidate for admission in anticipation of taking the February 2005 bar exam. A permanent refusal is the equivalent of a disbarment. Had the respondent committed similar acts after becoming an attorney, we would have given him at most an indefinite suspension and permitted him later to demonstrate that he had rehabilitated himself before rejoining the bar. In this case, there was no theft involved and no clients harmed although the conduct involved dishonesty. While I do not condone his behavior, I believe it was such that respondent ought to be given a chance to rehabilitate himself and then be permitted to apply again for admission to the bar.

Robert C. Baker, for applicant.

Kim R. Hoover, for Akron Bar Association.

{¶ 24} Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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.