Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1988No. D.D. 87-35PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. However, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, we *324would necessarily be required to deviate substantially from the precedent established by this court.

Respondent’s accomplishments as a practitioner, public servant, and community volunteer have made him a respected member of the bar in this state. However, this court cannot overlook the precedent establishing the sanction for a lawyer’s failure to comply with the federal income tax laws. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stichter (1985), 17…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. WolfeOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. StichterOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. LohaOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Bar Ass'n v. LittOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. MittendorfOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bryan v. FawkesSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014
  2. Toledo Bar Assn. v. AboodOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. LazzaroOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. VenezianoOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BowenOhio Supreme Court · 1989

3 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