In re Corrigan
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentSweeney, J.
The applicant’s conduct during the “multistate” portion of the July 1988 bar exam is totally inexcusable as well as reprehensible. While the applicant’s actions deserve harsh punishment, I cannot agree with the majority that they deserve what is essentially a death sentence to her legal career. Since the majority has precluded any possibility for applicant’s rehabilita*38tion, I must respectfully dissent from its decision.
As the majority readily observes, imposing sanctions for misconduct is not an exact science. Nevertheless, I am unpersuaded that the conduct underlying the punishment meted out…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- In re DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WannerOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Columbus Bar Ass'n v. GillOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SoucekOhio Supreme Court · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.