Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta

Ohio Supreme Court April 19, 1995

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta, 72 Ohio St. 3d 42 (Ohio 1995)

Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We agree that respondent violated DR 5-107(B), but we find the recommended sanction is not an adequate sanction for the nature of respondent’s *45conduct. We consider relator’s recommendation — a six-month suspension — the more appropriate response to this misconduct. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Dissenting Opinion

Wright, J.,

dissenting. Because I would suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year, I respectfully dissent.

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

Reference

Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published