Case ID: ohio-st-3d_36/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Holmes, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mahoning County Bar Association v. Theofilos
    [Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Theofilos (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 43.]
    (D.D. No. 87-12
    Decided April 6, 1988.)
    
      
      Comstock, Springer & Wilson, Marshall D. Buck and W. Terry Patrick, for relator.
    
      Richard A. Horning, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rule. While we adopt the board’s findings, we find that respondent’s conduct requires a more severe sanction than that recommended by the board. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Douglas, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.

Holmes, J., dissents.

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I must dissent insofar as I would require as condition of reinstatement that the monies and assets received from this estate be returned to those who would otherwise have inherited such assets.