Case ID: ohio-st-3d_72/html/0042-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 42.]
    (No. 94-1838
    Submitted January 24, 1995
    Decided April 19, 1995.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Carretta, Cornish & Brezine Co., L.P.A., and Donald F. Brezine, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 5-107(B), but we find the recommended sanction is not an adequate sanction for the nature of respondent’s conduct. We consider relator’s recommendation — a six-month suspension — the more appropriate response to this misconduct. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Wright and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. Because I would suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year, I respectfully dissent.

Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.