Case ID: ohio-st-3d_66/html/0041-01.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. Williams.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 41.]
    (No. 92-2207
    Submitted January 6, 1993
    Decided March 3, 1993.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harold F. Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    
      Kevin A. Williams, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4), and further agree that respondent’s unique psychological history is sufficiently mitigating to warrant the sanction of indefinite suspension. Accordingly, we order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Wright and Resnick, JJ., dissent and would disbar respondent.