Case ID: ohio-st-3d_67/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 25.]
    (No. 92-2192
    Submitted February 10, 1993
    Decided August 4, 1993.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen B. Hull, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings of misconduct by the board. However, we differ with the board’s recommendation. We order instead that respondent be publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., dissent.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would follow the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, with six months suspended upon condition that respondent not be found in violation of any other Disciplinary Rules for three years.

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.