Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Howard

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 2009No. 2009-0407PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} Respondent, Lee Howard of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0026930, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977. On August 30, 2007, we suspended respondent from practice on an interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon receiving notice that he had been convicted of a felony. In re Howard, 114 Ohio St.3d 1515, 2007-Ohio-4425, 872 N.E.2d 955.

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, order conditions for his readmission including a mental-health evaluation, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDicoOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. In re SchramOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. In re HowardOhio Supreme Court · 2007

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. ConradySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012
  2. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. James Robert KeeleSupreme Court of Iowa · 2011
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoover (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. HavenOhio Supreme Court · 2024
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. McClainOhio Supreme Court · 2024

4 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