Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Freedman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1990No. 89-1237PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent intended to, and for a short time did, thwart the administration of justice. He obtained and kept contraband which he knew the federal authorities, armed with a search warrant, sought. This is a *67serious crime. Therefore, we agree with the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but order that respondent be permanently disbarred. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur. H. Brown, J., dissents.

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. YoungOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. CohenOhio Supreme Court · 2015