Case ID: ohio-st-3d_66/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Douglas, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 369.]
    
      (No. 92-2536
    Submitted April 7, 1993
    Decided June 16, 1993.)
    
      
      J Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin K Matthews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Baker, Chapman & Diefenbach and Peter T. Cahoon, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings but not the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to the respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Douglas, J., dissents with opinion.

Resnick, J., dissents and would follow the panel’s recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for two years, but would stay the suspension during respondent’s good behavior.

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. This young man made a mistake. Haven’t we all? To make an example of respondent so that the message is sent that “ * * * prosecutors are fully accountable for such actions” is not, in my judgment, justice.

I would suspend respondent for a period of six months, and I would stay the suspension during good behavior.