Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bednarczuk

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 1970No. D. D. No. 101PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Eule XIX (1) of the Eules of Practice of this court adopts the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association, which are in question herein. Eule XVIII (6) states that “each attorney and counselor at law or judge found guilty of misconduct shall be disciplined. ’ ’

Eespondent, admitting his misconduct but contesting the severity of the recommended discipline, asks that this court consider the small likelihood of repetition, the fact that it was his first offense, the fact that he tends to get personally involved with his cases, and previous good conduct as mitigating…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. HamiltonOhio Supreme Court · 1966

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API