Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gross

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1984No. D.D. No. 83-44PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. MichaelsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. NorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. NorrisOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. City of Cleveland Heights v. LewisOhio Court of Appeals · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API