Legal Opinion

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Stichter

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1985No. D.D. No. 85-1PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

After a careful review of the facts and circumstances underlying the instant disciplinary action, we are convinced that the respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

*249We note that the responsibility for properly filing one’s tax returns is a responsibility that should never be taken lightly by any citizen, especially one who is licensed as an officer of the court. We are convinced that the respondent has come to realize the gravity of his offense by virtue of his willingness to fully cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service. Nevertheless, the…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. LargeOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  2. In re ManayanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BowenOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Amended January 30, 2017 Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Karen A. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. FarrOhio Supreme Court · 1986

2 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