Case ID: ohio-st-3d_71/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Pfeifer, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 391.]
    (No. 94-2253
    Submitted December 7, 1994
    Decided December 30, 1994.)
    
      
      Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Harry J. DePietro, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand Harry J. DePietro. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting. The facts as presented in this case do not merit disciplinary action. However, respondent did agree with the panel’s recommendation of a public reprimand. If there are some other facts that yielded this result, they should be revealed to this court. If not, the case should be dismissed.