Case ID: ohio-st-3d_50/html/0018-01.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

Cleveland Bar Association v. Stanley.
    [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stanley (1990), 50 Ohio St. 3d 18.]
    (No. 89-1558
    Submitted December 13, 1989
    Decided March 21, 1990.)
    
      
      Donald CybulsJci, Robert N. Rapp and James S. Carnes, for relator.
    
      Christopher D. Stanley, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board. However, we find the board’s recommendation inappropriate. Accordingly, we order that •respondent be placed on a six-month suspension, but that this sanction be suspended on the condition that he satisfactorily serve a two-year monitored probation period. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Holmes, J., dissents.

Douglas and H. Brown, JJ., dissent without opinion.

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I concur with the findings and recommendations adopted by the board of commissioners below, and thus I would not suspend respondent’s six-month suspension. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.