Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McDowell
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1994-11-23
Citations: 71 Ohio St. 3d 22
Docket Number: No. 94-493
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McDowell.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 71
Pages: 22–26

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McDowell.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McDowell (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 22.]
(No. 94-493
Submitted September 20, 1994
Decided November 23, 1994.)
Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We concur in the board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, we do not agree with the recommended sanction. In the case at bar, respondent pled guilty to perpetrating a fraud upon the judicial system by knowingly misrepresenting the actual residence of his clients. Finding that a more severe sanction is appropriate, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.