Legal Opinion

Bar Ass'n v. Chvosta

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1980No. D.D. No. 80-1PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent’s sole contention before this court is that he should not be suspended for an indefinite period because he was denied due process of law in both the trial and appeal of his criminal case. Respondent does not contend that he was not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Gov. R. V (8)(b) states:

“A certified copy of a judgment entry of conviction of an offense shall be conclusive evidence of the commission of that offense in any disciplinary proceedings instituted against an attorney based upon the conviction.”

This rule makes it clear that a disciplinary proceeding is not an…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MandelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1982
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. McAuliffeOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2023
  4. In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against SmithWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Columbus Bar Ass'n v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 1982

8 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