Narrative Opinion Summary
The court affirms that there is sufficient evidence supporting the board's determination that the respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It deems a one-year suspension from the practice of law as an appropriate and reasonable penalty in light of the circumstances. The judgment orders the respondent to be suspended for one year. The decision is concurred by Chief Justice Celebrezze and Justices W. Brown, Sweeney, Weber, Holmes, C. Brown, and J. P. Celebrezze, with Justice Weber sitting in for Justice Locher.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appropriate Sanctions for Professional Misconductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided that a one-year suspension from practicing law is a fitting penalty given the circumstances of the case.
Reasoning: It deems a one-year suspension from the practice of law as an appropriate and reasonable penalty in light of the circumstances.
Judicial Concurrence in Disciplinary Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision regarding the respondent's suspension was unanimously concurred by the chief justice and the participating justices.
Reasoning: The decision is concurred by Chief Justice Celebrezze and Justices W. Brown, Sweeney, Weber, Holmes, C. Brown, and J. P. Celebrezze, with Justice Weber sitting in for Justice Locher.
Violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found sufficient evidence to support the board's determination that the respondent violated this specific disciplinary rule.
Reasoning: The court affirms that there is sufficient evidence supporting the board's determination that the respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.