Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Nienaber

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1994No. 93-2521PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We do not, however, agree with the recommended sanction. In the case before us, respondent certified that the expenses enumerated in his travel voucher were incurred “in the service of the County and include[d] only such expenses as were necessary in performing that service. * * * ” (Emphasis added.) In reality, however, respondent sought reimbursement from public funds of certain expenditures wholly unrelated to the defense of his client.

Finding a more severe sanction to be warranted, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. HollandOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. NienaberOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. In re NienaberIndiana Supreme Court · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API