Case ID: ohio-st-3d_57/html/0021-01.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. McClenaghan.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McClenaghan (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 21.]
    (No. 90-1131
    Submitted October 17, 1990
    Decided January 9, 1991.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
    
      Sam B. Weiner, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We agree with relator that precedent supports imposing an indefinite suspension on respondent for his bribery conviction. Moreover, we find insufficient mitigating evidence to reduce that penalty. Respondent, formerly a high-ranking public official, bribed an employee in the division he had once headed. Letters of support do not easily mitigate such conduct. Therefore, we hereby adopt- the recommendation of the board and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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