History
  • No items yet
midpage
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro
71 Ohio St. 3d 391
| Ohio | 1994
|
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the findings and recommendation of the board. Accordingly, we hereby publicly reprimand Harry J. DePietro. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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





Dissenting Opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting. The facts as presented in this case do not merit disciplinary action. However, respondent did agree with the panel’s recommendation of a public reprimand. If there are some other facts that yielded this result, they should be revealed to this court. If not, the case should be dismissed.

Case Details

Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DePietro
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 30, 1994
Citation: 71 Ohio St. 3d 391
Docket Number: No. 94-2253
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.