Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Rumizen.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 2019No. 2019-0217PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

*284 *575 {¶ 1} Respondent, Scott Andrew Rumizen, of Beachwood, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0058561, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992. In May 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Rumizen with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct by purposely underpaying a former colleague pursuant to their fee-sharing arrangement. Rumizen stipulated to the charges against him, and after a hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct found that he had engaged in the stipulated misconduct and recommended that we suspend him for two years, with 18 months stayed on conditions. The…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. O'NeillOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. BrickerOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. EdwardsOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. KraemerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. PfundsteinOhio Supreme Court · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. CarrOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  2. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  3. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bulson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. RumizenOhio Supreme Court · 2020
  5. Matter of RumizenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API