Case ID: ohio-st-3d_74/html/0207-01.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

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Bortz.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bortz (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 207.]
    (No. 95-1669
    Submitted September 27, 1995
    Decided January 10, 1996.)
    
      
      Richard J. Ruebel, Hollis A. Moore III and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
    
      Helmer, Lugbill, Martins & Neff Co., L.P.A., and James B. Helmer, Jr., for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s finding of misconduct and its recommendation. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violation of DR 5-101(A). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Wright, J., dissents.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. Regrettably, I must respectfully dissent. I recognize the mitigating factors in this case; nevertheless, I believe this court should be consistent in its treatment of this type of case. Accordingly, I would suspend Bortz for one year and stay six months of the suspension.