Case ID: ohio-st_174/html/0021-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Taft, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dayton Bar Association v. Moore.
    (D. D. No. 32
    Decided November 21, 1962.)
    
      
      Messrs. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, Mr. Gordon H. Savage and Messrs. Earshman, Young, Colvin & Alexander, for relator.
    
    
      Messrs. Turner, Wells, Gransow & Spayd and Messrs. Kusworm & Kusworm, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This court, from a careful examination of the record and a consideration of the course of conduct of the respondent, is of the opinion that the board was neither in error nor unreasonable in its findings or recommendation. Therefore, the report of the board is confirmed, and judgment is rendered accordingly.

Report confirmed and judgment accordingly.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, Kerns, O’Neill and Griffith, JJ., concur.

Kerns, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of Herbert, J.

Taft, J.,

dissenting. I dissent for the reason that in my opinion the course of conduct of the respondent as disclosed by the transcript of proceedings before the board of commissioners justifies an indefinite suspension of respondent from the practice of law. ■_