Columbus Bar Ass'n v. Baker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We have reviewed the record and agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. We also agree with the sanction recommended by the board, despite respondent’s objection that the requirement to renew his two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program extends his probation period unnecessarily.
Respondent complains that his probation will effectively last into 1998 if he is required to renew the OLAP contract when it expires in 1996. We, however, do not consider this requirement unreasonable. As testimony in this record substantiates, an addict’s recovery is never absolute. Relapse…
2Cited by9 opinions
- ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. GilbertCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- In Re YarboroughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. HoltCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Skolnick.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.