Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Christensen
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We adopt the findings of fact of the board. Further, we conclude that respondent has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) by (1) undertaking the representation of Good when he had failed to comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI, (2) failing to comply with the sanctions imposed for not meeting the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (3) failing to cooperate with the grievance investigation as required by Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Therefore, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. HigginsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. BarronOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. BaasOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Disciplinary Counsel v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.