Case ID: ohio-st-3d_64/html/0460-01.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. McMahon.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McMahon (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 460.]
    
      (No. 92-419
    Submitted April 15, 1992
    Decided September 2, 1992.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, for relator.
    
      Thomas Paul McMahon, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules, as found by the board. We also concur with the board’s recommendation. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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