Case ID: ohio-st-3d_36/html/0205-01.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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Scuro.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Scuro (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 205.]
    (D.D. No. 87-24
    Decided May 4, 1988.)
    
      
      J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
    
      Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This court adopts the factual findings of the board. We conclude, however, that the findings support a more severe sanction than recommended. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months for having violated DR 3-101(B). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

H. Brown, J., dissents.

H. Brown, J.,

dissenting. Since the respondent was once disciplined in Texas for the conduct which is before us, I believe the sanction we should impose is a public reprimand as recommended by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.