holding that an attorney who engages in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time
How later courts described this case
- holding that an attorney who engages in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time
- creating a presumption that an attorney who has engaged in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation will receive an actual suspension
- creating 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO a presumption that an attorney who has engaged in a course of conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation will receive an actual suspension
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Alice Robie Resnick, J.,
concurring in judgment. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 13 , 655 N.E.2d 1299 , I concur in judgment only. It is the responsibility of this court to give guidance as to what conduct constitutes a violation of the Disciplinary Rules. It is not the province of this court to use syllabus law to mandate a particular sanction once a violation has been found. The sanction in each individual’s case should be determined based upon the unique facts and circumstances of that case.
Douglas, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.