Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1986No. D.D. No. 85-35PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

It is well-established by this court that embezzlement of funds is demonstrative of sufficient moral turpitude to justify disbarment. Bar Assn. v. McGarry (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 168 [14 O.O.3d 406]; Lake County Bar Assn. v. Ostrander (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93 [70 O.O.2d 173]. Such a determination, however, is neither lightly nor automatically imposed. See, e.g., Reinstatement of Rasor (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 25 [69 O.O.2d 127] (mitigating circumstances offered with a finding that petitioner had rehabilitated himself to justify readmission to the bar).

In the present cause respondent’s apparent…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. OstranderOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Bar Ass'n of Greater Cleveland v. McGarryOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. In re Reinstatement of RasorOhio Supreme Court · 1974

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Committee on Legal Ethics v. SixWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Cincinnati Bar Association v. WiestOhio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GeronOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. People v. LacalloColorado Court of Appeals · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API