Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCURO.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of that jurisdiction's professional regulations.

Per Curiam.

This court adopts the factual findings of the board. We conclude, however, that the findings support a more severe sanction than recommended. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months for having violated DR 3-101(B). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.

H. BROWN, J., dissents.

H. BROWN, J., dissenting.

Since the respondent was once disciplined in Texas for the conduct which is before us, I believe the sanction we should impose is a public reprimand as recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCURO
(May 4, 1988)