Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Ohio Supreme Court, 1995

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta
Ohio Supreme Court · Decided April 19, 1995 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
72 Ohio St. 3d 42
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Carretta

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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.

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.

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