Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1996-02-28
Citations: 74 Ohio St. 3d 596
Docket Number: No. 95-2556
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 74
Pages: 596–598

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 596.]
(No. 95-2556
Submitted January 24, 1996
Decided February 28, 1996.)
Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
James Edward Caywood, pro se.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We concur in the board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, respondent's repeated violations of the Disciplinary Rules over a relatively short period of time merit a more severe penalty than that recommended by the board. Respondent's most recent violations took place approximately one month after his suspension was announced by this court in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood, 71 Ohio St.3d 164, 642 N.E.2d 625. In defiance of our ordered suspension, respondent continued to practice law by appearing in court as an attorney, even though he knew that it was clearly improper for him to do so. In light of respondent's current violations and history of professional misconduct, respondent is hereby ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.