Case ID: ohio-st-3d_62/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n     Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Akron Bar Association v. Naumoff.
    [Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72.]
    (No. 91-859
    Submitted June 26, 1991
    Decided October 16, 1991.)
    
      
      Dean A. Young and Michael A. Tramonte, for relator.
    
      Mitchell A. Naumoff, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand. However, we refuse to allow six months more to pass before Stidd is repaid the $12,344.30 he was overcharged. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 2-106(A) and (B), and ordered to make restitution within sixty days of the date of our order. If respondent fails to meet this deadline, he is to be immediately suspended from the practice of law in Ohio until such time as restitution is made. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Wright, J., dissents.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would suspend respondent for a period of six months and condition his reinstatement upon his making full restitution.