Case ID: ohio-st-3d_37/html/0042-01.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. Soucek.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Soucek (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 42.]
    No. D.D. 87-27
    Submitted February 16, 1988
    Decided May 25, 1988.
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
    
      Jonathan H. Soucek, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

This court finds that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules indicated by the board. However, we find the sanction recommended was not appropriate when compared to the misconduct committed. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Wright, J., dissents.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. The facts in this case indicate that respondent participated in — indeed, he was the driving force behind — a $200,000 illegal drug deal. Therefore, I believe that permanent disbarment would be a more appropriate sanction.