Case Name: Toledo Bar Association v. Mansour-Ismail
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-06-16
Citations: 86 Ohio St. 3d 27
Docket Number: No. 99-380
Parties: Toledo Bar Association v. Mansour-Ismail.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 86
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
Toledo Bar Association v. Mansour-Ismail.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mansour-Ismail (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 27.]
(No. 99-380
Submitted April 14, 1999
Decided June 16, 1999.)
David M. Mohr and Guy T. Barone, for relator.
James D. Caruso, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent violated DR 7-104(A)(l) by communicating directly with adverse parties represented by counsel about the subject of the representation without their counsel's consent. As in comparable cases involving a violation of DR 7-104(A)(l), a public reprimand is an appropriate sanction. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rossi (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 195, 690 N.E.2d 501; Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Makridis (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 73, 671 N.E.2d 31; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Savage (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 183, 657 N.E.2d 507. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., not participating.