Disciplinary Counsel v. King

{¶ 33} I respectfully dissent because I would impose an actual two-year suspension, as advocated by relator. Alternatively, I suggest that respondent’s history of misconduct warrants mandating that he maintain professional liability insurance during the stayed portion of his suspension.

{¶ 34} The board found that respondent “has developed or is on the verge of developing a pattern of dishonesty that could materially endanger the public.” My conclusion is less equivocal. Since 1990, respondent has thrice violated DR 1-102(A)(4), in addition to violating another Disciplinary Rule; he has…