Case ID: ohio-st-3d_15/html/0121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 121.]
    (D.D. No. 84-20
    December 31, 1984.)
    
      
      Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
    
      Mr. Christian Dean Rothermel, pro se.
    
    
      
       Respondent was tercharged with a proceeding. of disciplinary rule violations arising from the sale of an automobile without a certificate of title. Respondent was indicted for a violation of R.C. 4505.19(C) which prohibits the sale of a motor vehicle without a certificate of title and is a felony of the fourth degree. Respondent subsequently pled no contest to a misdemeanor, was found guilty, and fined $100. The board found that, in light of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the vehicle, respondent’s conduct did not amount to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Relator has not objected to any aspect of the board’s report. As such, we adopt the board’s finding in this regard.
    
   Per Curiam.

Inasmuch as respondent has filed no objections to the board’s recommendations, we agree that the appropriate sanction for respondent is a one-year suspension.

Accordingly, we adopt the findings and recommendations of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.