Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Columbro
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
This court finds that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6). Respondent’s actions were without question serious and, as such, warrant a serious sanction. However, we have difficulty finding that the situation here is more egregious, thereby warranting a greater sanction, than that found in Akron Bar Assn. v. Chandler, supra.
As an assistant prosecutor, respondent was indeed an entrusted public servant. However, it should be emphasized that all attorneys who practice law in this state are required to maintain the utmost degree of integrity, honesty, and competence. Any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ColumbroOhio Supreme Court · 1996