Case ID: ohio-st-3d_68/html/0486-01.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. Pizzedaz.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 486.]
    (No. 93-2176
    Submitted December 7, 1993
    Decided March 23, 1994.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Gold, Rotatori, Schwartz & Gibbons Co., L.P.A., and John S. Pyle, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4) and (6). ■ However, we reject the indefinite suspension the board recommended. Respondent’s misconduct manifests the public’s worst fear about lawyers. His crimes prove that he will take advantage of public trust if given the opportunity. Thus, unlike the board and panel, we are not impressed with respondent’s admission of guilt, remorse, full restitution, and efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. Rather, we find respondent’s dishonesty deserving of the full measure of our disciplinary authority. • Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Douglas and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would follow the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.