Case ID: ohio-st-3d_74/html/0209-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Cook, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cincinnati Bar Association v. Slattery.
    [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Slattery (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 209.]
    (No. 95-841
    Submitted September 27, 1995
    Decided January 10, 1996.)
    
      
      Peter Rosenwald and James J. Condit, for relator.
    
      James H. Coogan, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3) and 9~102(A)(2), as well as Gov.Bar R. X. We also agree, in the main, with the board’s recommendation; however, we consider a two-year probation period more appropriate for the public’s protection. Moreover, consistent with relator’s suggested sanction, we are inclined to credit respondent for the purpose of his actual suspension period from December 16, 1994, the date on which he conscientiously entered the Prospect House and had already ceased practicing law on his own accord. Therefore, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, one year of this sanction is suspended, respondent is placed on probation for two years under the conditions established by the board, and the period of his actual suspension is deemed to have commenced on December 16, 1994. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cook, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

Cook, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the sanction imposed by the majority, with the exception that I would impose two years of actual time suspended from the practice of law.