Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1997No. 1997-1313PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KouryOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BancsiOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Akron Bar Ass'n v. ThorpeOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. ShabazzOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. BruceOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. JeffersonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. HendersonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Okuley (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. JeffersonOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API