Case ID: ohio-st-3d_41/html/0011-01.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

Dayton Bar Association v. Sams.
    [Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sams (1989), 41 Ohio St. 3d 11.]
    (No. D.D. 88-23
    Submitted January 11, 1989
    Decided March 15, 1989.)
    
      
      Jablinski, Folino, Roberts, Schultz & Martin and Ronald E. Schultz, for relator.
    
      John H. Rion, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur with the board’s findings and its recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Wright and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I must respectfully dissent. Respondent’s gross violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 1-102(A)(6) were too serious to merit the sanction invoked by the majority. I would suspend respondent at a minimum for an eighteen-month period, and I would consider a period of probation thereafter.

Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.