Ohio Supreme Court, 1991

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Naumoff

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Naumoff
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 16, 1991 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
62 Ohio St. 3d 72; 578 N.E.2d 452; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2287

Akron Bar Ass'n v. Naumoff

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would suspend respondent for a period of six months and condition his reinstatement upon his making full restitution.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings and recommendation of a public reprimand. However, we refuse to allow six months more to pass before Stidd is repaid the $12,344.30 he was overcharged. Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 2-106(A) and (B), and ordered to make restitution within sixty days of the date of our order. If respondent fails to meet this deadline, he is to be immediately suspended from the practice of law in Ohio until such time as restitution is made. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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