Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Nichols
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In objections to the board’s report, relator argues that the evidence substantiates disciplinary violations in addition to those found by the board. We disagree, and, therefore, hold that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) in connection with Counts Two and Six as found by the board.
Relator also argues that these violations require a more severe sanction than the board recommended. We agree with relator on this point. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio *549for a full year. However, this sanction will be suspended on the condition that respondent…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Broome v. Mississippi BarMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Toledo Bar Ass'n v. DziennyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. DziennyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LawrenceOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. NicholsOhio Supreme Court · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.