Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1996No. 96-522PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Per curiam

The purpose of disciplinary actions, Lord Mansfield wrote in 1778, “is not by way of punishment; but the Courts on such cases exercise their discretion, whether a man whom they have formerly admitted, is a proper person to be continued on the roll or not.” Ex parte Brounsall (1778), 2 Cowp. 829, 830, 98 Eng.Rep. 1385. The guiding principle in this case, as in all our disciplinary proceedings, is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to practice a profession imbued with public trust. We have previously emphasized that *373respect for the law and our legal system is the sine qua…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. FowerbaughOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McCraeOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & HaddenOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & HaddenOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. ChurillaOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. BattOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. TrumboOhio Supreme Court · 1996

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API