# Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 28, 2012 · 134 Ohio St. 3d 311

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801550

## Case

- **Full name:** Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 28, 2012
- **Citations:** 134 Ohio St. 3d 311; 982 N.E.2d 650; 2012 Ohio 5457
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stratton
- **Judges:** Lanzinger, O'Connor, Pfeifer, Cupp, Brown, Stratton, O'Donnell
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9801550

## Opinion text

Lundberg Stratton, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 22} I dissent only because I disagree with the sanction. While I agree with the finding of violations, I would impose a six-month suspension, all stayed upon conditions. I believe that Cicero’s intentions were not for personal aggrandizement or personal gain, as found by the majority, but were to alert the coach about misconduct by his players that could affect the team. His request that such information be held confidential does not support the notion that he was trying to seek fame. That conclusion is contrary to the content of the e-mails. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
O’Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801550. Public record. Not legal advice.