Case ID: ohio-st-3d_71/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Pfeifer, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Talbert.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Talbert (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 438.]
    (No. 94-2300
    Submitted December 7, 1994
    Decided December 30, 1994.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      
      Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s finding of misconduct and its recommendations. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting. The facts as presented in this case do not merit disciplinary action. However, respondent did agree with the relator’s recommendation of a public reprimand. If there are some other facts that yielded this result, they should be revealed to this court. If not, the case should be dismissed.