Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1999-02-10
Citations: 84 Ohio St. 3d 489
Docket Number: No. 98-1241
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur,
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 84
Pages: 489–491

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Linick (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 489.]
(No. 98-1241
Submitted September 16, 1998
Decided February 10, 1999.)
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Loñ J. Brown, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. On review of the record, we find that respondent's conduct violated DR 2-107(A)(l) and 5-107(A)(2) as found by the board. In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Zuckerman (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 148, 699 N.E.2d 40, we imposed a one-year suspension on one of the outside counsel who participated in this scheme. We believe that the same sanction is appropriate for respondent. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur,
Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.