Case ID: ohio-st-3d_53/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     H. Brown, 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 (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 248.]
    (No. 90-454
    Submitted June 6, 1990
    Decided September 12, 1990.)
    
      
      Ronald E. Shultz, for relator.
    
      JohnH. Rion, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board. We also agree that laches and collateral estoppel do not apply in this situation. Furthermore, like the board, we find respondent’s misconduct deserving of the most serious sanction available. Therefore, we order that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

H. Brown, J., dissents.

H. Brown, J.,

dissenting. I agree with the recommendation of the Dayton Bar Association and the recommendation of the panel which heard the complaint against the respondent. Indefinite suspension would be the more appropriate sanction. In essence the respondent is being punished for a second offense because two complaints which could have been combined were processed separately. Had these two complaints been considered in one proceeding, the penalty of indefinite suspension would have been a fairly severe one for the acts committed by the respondent.