# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 12, 1995 · 74 Ohio St. 3d 187

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801052

## Case

- **Full name:** Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 12, 1995
- **Citations:** 74 Ohio St. 3d 187; 1995 Ohio 261
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Resnick
- **Judges:** Moyer, Wright, Sweeney, Cook, Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer
- **Cited by:** 103 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/9801052

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801052. Public record. Not legal advice.