Case ID: ohio-st-3d_60/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Moyer, C.J., Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Toledo Bar Association v. Rost.
    [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Rost (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 99.]
    (No. 90-2077 —
    Submitted January 8, 1991 —
    Decided June 5, 1991.)
    
      
      Frank E. Kane, Dale W. Fallat and John N. MaoKay, for relator.
    
      Robert Z. Kaplan, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We concur with the findings of the board; however, we modify the sanction. Respondent is publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting. I would order a six-month suspension, but would suspend same pending respondent’s successful completion of a six-month supervised and monitored probation period.

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I believe the facts in this case justify a penalty substantially greater than a public reprimand, to wit, six months’ actual suspension.

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