Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1998No. 97-2184PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

After review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. We said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, and recently repeated in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 689 N.E.2d 538, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Bandy (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 291, 690 N.E.2d 1280, “[w]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” But, as the board…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. KnowltonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. BandyOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. KramerOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Dayton Bar Assn. v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. HutchinsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. HerzogOhio Supreme Court · 1999

6 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