Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Hales

{¶ 28} I agree with the majority’s holding, except that I would also require Hales to pay $280,000 in restitution as a condition precedent to reinstating his law license. Therefore, I respectfully dissent in part.

{¶ 29} The majority states that “[ojrdering respondent to pay restitution would further respondent’s rehabilitation.” Majority opinion at ¶ 26. Nevertheless, following Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Gay (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 404, 763 N.E.2d 585, the majority holds that the respondent is not required to pay restitution as a condition of reinstatement.

{¶ 30} In Gay, the court considered…