Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1984-12-31
Citations: 15 Ohio St. 3d 121
Docket Number: D.D. No. 84-20
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel.
Judges: Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 15
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 121.]
(D.D. No. 84-20
December 31, 1984.)
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Mr. Christian Dean Rothermel, pro se.
Respondent was tercharged with a proceeding. of disciplinary rule violations arising from the sale of an automobile without a certificate of title. Respondent was indicted for a violation of R.C. 4505.19(C) which prohibits the sale of a motor vehicle without a certificate of title and is a felony of the fourth degree. Respondent subsequently pled no contest to a misdemeanor, was found guilty, and fined $100. The board found that, in light of the circumstances surrounding the sale of the vehicle, respondent’s conduct did not amount to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Relator has not objected to any aspect of the board’s report. As such, we adopt the board’s finding in this regard.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Inasmuch as respondent has filed no objections to the board's recommendations, we agree that the appropriate sanction for respondent is a one-year suspension.
Accordingly, we adopt the findings and recommendations of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.