Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Norris

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1996No. 95-2525PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We concur with the board’s findings, but believe that a more severe penalty is warranted. First, we take as fact that the respondent is guilty of the misdemeanor of possessing cocaine. Despite his testimony, and that of others, that there were no facts to support his conviction and that he pled guilty to avoid a trial, we decline to go behind the federal court’s judgment. As we pointed out in Disciplinary Counsel v. Mesi (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 45, 49, 647 N.E.2d 473, 476, “a guilty plea is not a ceremony of innocence, nor can it.be rationalized in a subsequent disciplinary proceeding.”

Second,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MichaelsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MesiOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SmakulaOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. GrossOhio Supreme Court · 1984

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Akron Bar Ass'n v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. KenneyOhio Supreme Court · 2006

3 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