Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Mamich

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 2010No. 2009-2010PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} Respondent, Samuel Jay Mamich of Beachwood, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0006097, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, with the entire six months stayed, based on findings that he represented a client’s daughter in a legal matter without the daughter’s knowledge or consent. We accept the board’s findings of professional misconduct and the recommendation of a six-month stayed suspension.

{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. HardimanOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. KaplanOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. ItaOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Columbus Bar Assn. v. ManganOhio Supreme Court · 2009

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mancino.Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Tye v. Beausay, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County2017

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

Powered by the Exa API