Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Upon a review of the record, we find that respondent has violated DR 1-102(A)(6) as to both counts. Further, after ¿n analysis of the facts presented, particularly those that would show that respondent is suffering from a serious alcohol/drug problem and is not capable of meeting his personal responsibilities, much less capable- of handling legal matters entrusted to him, we conclude that a period of rehabilitation is required for this respondent to be able to present himself capable of practicing the profession of law.
*50Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board of commissioners and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MichaelsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. NorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Disciplinary Counsel v. NorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- City of Cleveland Heights v. LewisOhio Court of Appeals · 2010