Case ID: ohio-st-3d_53/html/0268-01.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. Kasson.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kasson (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 268.]
    (No. 90-400
    Submitted June 5, 1990
    Decided September 12, 1990.)
    
      
      Charles E. Hamilton, Timothy E. Hoberg and Baron H. Gold, for relator.
    
      H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. We therefore reject respondent’s argument, made in objections to the board’s report, that relator failed to prove his misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. We also reject the proposition that a monitored probation, rather than an indefinite suspension, is appropriate here. Furthermore, although respondent cites Palomo v. State Bar of California (1984), 36 Cal. 3d 786, 205 Cal. Rptr. 834, 685 P. 2d 1185, that decision does not specifically support respondent’s theory that the panel denied him due process of law by refusing his request for a continuance. Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.