# Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 10, 2005 · 106 Ohio St. 3d 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788446

## Case

- **Full name:** Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 10, 2005
- **Citations:** 106 Ohio St. 3d 84; 831 N.E.2d 1000
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moyer
- **Judges:** Connor, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton
- **Cited by:** 13 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/6788446

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788446. Public record. Not legal advice.