Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Absent any mitigating circumstances, the normal penalty for ignoring previous orders of the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment. Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonald (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 628, 646 N.E.2d 819; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shabazz (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 24, 656 N.E.2d 325. Respondent continued to practice law by appearing in the common pleas court while suspended. His activities were not unlike those of the lawyer in Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752, where we disbarred a suspended attorney who attempted to settle an…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KouryOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BancsiOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Akron Bar Ass'n v. ThorpeOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. ShabazzOhio Supreme Court · 1995
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BruceOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. JeffersonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Disciplinary Counsel v. HendersonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Okuley (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
- Disciplinary Counsel v. JeffersonOhio Supreme Court · 1998