Case Name: Cincinnati Bar Association v. Clark
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1994-12-14
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 3d 145
Docket Number: No. 94-497
Parties: Cincinnati Bar Association v. Clark.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 145–147

Head Matter:
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Clark.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Clark (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 145.]
(No. 94-497
Submitted September 14, 1994
Decided December 14, 1994.)
Deborah Delong and Charles S. Kamine, for relator.
James N. Perry, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
After careful review of the record, we agree that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 5-101(A), and 5-104(A): However, we find respondent's misconduct more like that committed in Disciplinary Counsel v. Slavens (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 162, 586 N.E.2d 92, where we imposed an indefinite suspension, than the misconduct committed in Mahoning Bar Assn. v. Theofilos, supra, where we imposed only a one-year suspension. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, but one year of this period will be suspended due to the mitigating factors identified in the panel's report. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.