Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Joltin

  • 147 Ohio St. 3d 490
  • 67 N.E.3d 780
  • 2016 Ohio 8168
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 19, 2016
Status
Published
Author
Lanzinger
On the bench
Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, O'Neill, Lanzinger, O'Connor
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.3%

finding that “the evidence was insufficient to establish that Joltin suffered from a mental disorder that was causally related to his misconduct” [emphasis added]

How later courts described this case

  • finding that “the evidence was insufficient to establish that Joltin suffered from a mental disorder that was causally related to his misconduct” [emphasis added]

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Lanzinger, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 35} I respectfully dissent and would impose an indefinite suspension in this ease. A two-year suspension with one year stayed is insufficient when the presumptive sanction is disbarment for misappropriation of client funds. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413 , 2004-Ohio-6559 , 819 N.E.2d 1099, ¶ 18 .

O’Connor, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.