Case ID: ohio-st-3d_68/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 478.]
    (No. 93-2180
    Submitted December 7, 1993
    Decided March 23, 1994.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings of fact' and conclusions of law of the board. However, we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law without credit for time served. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents.,

Douglas, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I would concur with the recommendations of the board.