Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1997No. 97-436PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. An attorney who continues to practice law while his license is under suspension violates DR 3-101(B). Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 532 N.E.2d 752. As we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 436, 674 N.E.2d 1371, 1373, “The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.”

However, in view of the specific facts of this case, including respondent’s prompt attempt to cure the deficiency with respect to continuing legal.education which resulted in his…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KouryOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Akron Bar Ass'n v. ThorpeOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. BancsiOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. BancsiOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ChaversOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. BlackwellOhio Supreme Court · 1997

6 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