Case ID: ohio-st-3d_72/html/0234-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dayton Bar Association v. O’Neal.
    [Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. O’Neal (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 234.]
    (No. 94-2647
    Submitted February 7, 1995
    Decided May 24, 1995.)
    
      
      Faruki, Gilliam & Ireland and Paul G. Hollinan, for relator.
    
      Herbert Creech, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 6 — 101(A)(2) and (3), and in its recommendation. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six-months, but this sanction is suspended on the condition that he complete a two-year probation period and that, during this period, no complaints against him have been certified to the board by a probable cause panel. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., dissent.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. Given the aggravating factors that O’Neal failed to carry professional liability insurance, filed a bankruptcy petition and plan under which little if any of Gordon’s judgment will be paid, and reacted in a dishonorable fashion when first confronted by relator regarding the complaints, I would impose suspension without a stay.

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.