Ohio Supreme Court, 1993

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided August 4, 1993 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
67 Ohio St. 3d 25; 615 N.E.2d 1035

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cordova

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings of misconduct by the board. However, we differ with the board’s recommendation. We order instead that respondent be publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., and Wright, J., dissent.

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. I would follow the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year, with six months suspended upon condition that respondent not be found in violation of any other Disciplinary Rules for three years.

Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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