History
  • No items yet
midpage
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ressing
53 Ohio St. 3d 265
Ohio
1990
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and its recommendation. Thus, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent for having violated DR 1-102(A)(6). Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ressing
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Sep 12, 1990
Citation: 53 Ohio St. 3d 265
Docket Number: No. 90-403
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.