# Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 27, 2006 · 112 Ohio St. 3d 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801187

## Case

- **Full name:** Disciplinary Counsel v. Curry
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 27, 2006
- **Citations:** 112 Ohio St. 3d 130; 858 N.E.2d 392; 2006 Ohio 6517
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stratton
- **Judges:** Moyer, Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Stratton, Lanzinger
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9801187

## Opinion text

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 24} For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Disciplinary Counsel v. Geer, 112 Ohio St.3d 124 , 2006-0hio-6516, 858 N.E.2d 388 , I dissent and would leave respondent’s sanction as an interim suspension, rather than a finite suspension. As soon as respondent becomes current on his arrearage and current on his child-support obligations, I would allow him to provide proof of doing so and permit him to apply to be reinstated on the condition that he proves compliance with all the requirements imposed in this court’s interim suspension order. In so doing, respondent would be able to more quickly return to the practice of law and be able to earn a living and better provide for his children. I respectfully dissent.
Lanzinger, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801187. Public record. Not legal advice.