Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Farr

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1986No. D.D. No. 85-28Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDouglas, J.

The report to this court from the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar recommends that the Respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the State of Ohio, and that the Respondent be given credit for time served. * * *” (Emphasis added.) It is unfortunate that the majority has declined to follow the recommendation of the board and give credit to respondent for the time he has already been suspended from the practice.

For the reasons stated in my…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. StichterOhio Supreme Court · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API