Ohio Supreme Court, 1990

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 27, 1990 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

52 Ohio St. 3d 142; 556 N.E.2d 466; 1990 Ohio LEXIS 265

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker (Ohio 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed this record, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6). However, in light of the mitigating evidence, we find the sanction recommended by the panel to be the more appropriate penalty in this case. Therefore, we order that respondent be *144suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, but we suspend this penalty on the condition that he satisfactorily complete an eighteen-month monitored probation period. During this period, respondent shall be subject to random and unannounced drug testing. This testing shall be undertaken at respondent’s expense. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.