Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1998No. 98-384PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

As we said in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899, “The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.” We find no mitigating circumstances here that would justify an exception to that principle. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. BelockOhio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. YoungOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. NagornyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. YoungOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. RomaniwOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. MazzoccoOhio Supreme Court · 1999

3 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