Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll

  • 106 Ohio St. 3d 84
  • 831 N.E.2d 1000
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 10, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Moyer
On the bench
Connor, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton
Cited by
13 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.3%

The opinion

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 16} I respectfully dissent from the sanction imposed on respondent by the majority. We have held as syllabus law that “[w]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187 , 658 N.E.2d 237 . Only rarely do mitigating facts warrant variation from this rule. On the facts of this case, I would impose a six-month actual suspension, as recommended by relator.

O’Connor, J., concurs 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.