Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wineman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 2009No. 2008-2405PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} Respondent, Reese Mark Wineman of Norwalk, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0032268, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, staying the entire suspension on conditions, based on findings that he attempted to represent clients, both in and out of the courtroom, while intoxicated. We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that a two-year suspension, conditionally stayed, is appropriate.

{¶ 2} Relator,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Lake County Bar Ass'n v. TroyOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. ScurryOhio Supreme Court · 2007

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. Halligan (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Columbus Bar Assn. v. AllerdingOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Disciplinary Counsel v. GernertOhio Supreme Court · 2024
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. GernertOhio Supreme Court · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API