Case ID: ohio-st-3d_74/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dayton Bar Association v. Truman.
    [Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Truman (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 4.]
    (No. 95-1194
    Submitted July 26, 1995
    Decided October 25, 1995.)
    
      
      Mark R. Chilson, for relator.
    
      David C. Greer, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but six months of the sanction period are suspended on the condition that no disciplinary complaints against respondent are certified to the board by a probable cause panel during the one-year period. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cook, J., dissents.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Respondent embezzled over $16,000, and only admitted the conduct upon concluding that he would probably be caught through the IRS proceedings. Giving consideration to the mitigating factors recited in the majority decision, I nevertheless believe that anything less than a full one-year suspension would be an inadequate censure.