Legal Opinion · Dissent

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1988No. D.D. 84-25Published

1DissentDouglas, J.

Since I cannot concur in the majority’s judgment denying petitioner’s request for reinstatement to the practice of law, I respectfully dissent.

Gov. Bar R. V(28) states in part:

“No person shall be reinstated unless he has established by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the panel hearing the petition for reinstatement that he has made appropriate restitution to the persons who were harmed by his misconduct and that he possesses all of the qualifications, mental, educational and moral, which would have been a requirement of an applicant for admission to the Bar of Ohio at the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SoucekOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. HockOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API