Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1998No. 98-717PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings of fact of the board and its conclusion that respondent violated DR 9-102, 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6). We do not adopt, however, the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). The panel reached this latter conclusion after it reviewed the evidence presented to it, and the board rationalized the panel’s action by reference to its own procedural regulation, Section 1(A). To the extent that this regulation authorizes the addition of misconduct charges after the record is closed, we find that it fails to pass the test of procedural due…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. GlatkiOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. GlatkiOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. Potts v. Commission on Continuing Legal EducationOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. FarmerOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. ReisenfeldOhio Supreme Court · 1998

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API