Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Judge of trial court — Disciplinary action — Penalty warranted — Public reprimand.
Per Curiam.
Since this court's order of June 27, 1962, deferring final determination of this cause, the respondent's conduct has been beyond reproach, and, it appearing further that respondent has paid the costs and that there is not a likelihood of a repetition of his former conduct, this court is of the opinion that the discipline to be administered should be a public reprimand, and it is so ordered.
Judgment accordingly.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH and HERBERT, JJ., concur.
GIBSON, J., not participating.
TAFT, C.J., concurring.
I dissented from the June 27, 1962, order of this court in this case. However, because of that order and of the subsequent conduct of respondent, this court could not now reasonably render any judgment other than the one described in the court's opinion. I therefore concur in that judgment.