Case ID: ohio-st-3d_62/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Herbert R. Brown, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Spitz.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Spitz (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 178.]
    (No. 91-1250
    Submitted September 24, 1991
    Decided December 11, 1991.)
    
      
      Theodore W Weinkam and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
    
      Robert E. Taylor, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

After careful consideration of the record before us, we concur in the board’s findings of respondent’s violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We decline, however, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, finding that respondent’s misconduct warrants a more severe penalty. We thus suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months, with reinstatement conditioned upon repayment of the retainer fees tendered to him by his clients. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur.

H. Brown, J., dissents.

Herbert R. Brown, J.,

dissenting. In this case the panel who heard the evidence believed the appropriate sanction to be a public reprimand. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline also recommended a public reprimand as the appropriate sanction. Considering the record, I would not reject those recommendations.