Case ID: ohio-st-3d_21/html/0030-01.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

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Braddock.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Braddock (1986), 21 Ohio St. 3d 30.]
    (D.D. No. 85-37
    Decided January 2, 1986.)
    
      
      Ernest A. Eyon II, Edwin W. Patterson III and Charles E. Mitchell, for relator.
   Per Curiam.

Having reviewed the record, the findings of fact and conclusions of fact of the board, this court determines that there are ample facts to justify the board’s findings that Robert L. Braddock did in fact violate DR 1-102(A)(1), 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(3), and Gov. Bar R. V(4).

Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to him.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown, Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur.