Ohio Supreme Court, 1999

Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Nigolian

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided October 27, 1999 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

87 Ohio St. 3d 147; 718 N.E.2d 417

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff (Ohio 2003)
Cuyahoga County Bar Ass'n v. Nigolian (Ohio 2002)
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawrence (Ohio 2013)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian (Ohio 2002)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian (Ohio 1999)

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 adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Given respondent’s restitution, remorse, and ultimate cooperation in the proceedings, a definite suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 185, 580 N.E.2d 1076. Respondent is hereby suspended from the *150practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that during the first six months of the suspension, he take six hours of continuing legal education courses in law office management. Costs taxed to respondent.1

Judgment accordingly.

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

. We deny grievant Stanek’s motion for leave to file objections to the board’s report.

Dissenting Opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

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

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