Ohio Supreme Court, 1991

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rost

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rost
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 5, 1991 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Snick, Sweeney, Wright
60 Ohio St. 3d 99; 573 N.E.2d 71; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 1243

Toledo Bar Ass'n v. Rost

Dissenting Opinion

Moyer, C.J.,

dissenting. I would order a six-month suspension, but would suspend same pending respondent’s successful completion of a six-month supervised and monitored probation period.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We concur with the findings of the board; however, we modify the sanction. Respondent is publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Re snick, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., Holmes and Wright, JJ., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I believe the facts in this case justify a penalty substantially greater than a public reprimand, to wit, six months’ actual suspension.

Holmes, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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