Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Mesi

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1995No. 94-2654PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

We concur in the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), 5-105(B), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(A) and (B). The board’s recommended sanction, however, is not appropriate.

We, like the court in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Shorall (1991), 527 Pa. 413, 592 A.2d 1285, are not moved by respondent’s apologies for his poor judgment and naivety. Respondent pleaded guilty to the felony of which he now stands convicted. As the Shorall court observed, a guilty plea is not a ceremony of innocence, nor can it be rationalized in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding. Id. at 424-425,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. AnthonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ShorallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. WingerterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. PowersOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. MargolisOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. NorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. EwingOhio Supreme Court · 1996

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