Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Pizzedaz, 628 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Pizzedaz, 628 N.E.2d 1359 (Ohio 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Burkhart (2×)
Ohio · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 486 , 628 N.E.2d 1359 (attorney committed five counts of theft in office, in violation of R.C. 2921.41, and one count of tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 150 , 552 N.E.2d 941 (attorney convicted of grand theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02[A][2]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Disciplinary Counsel v. Burkhart
Ohio · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Pizzedaz (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 486 , 828 N.E.2d 1359 (attorney committed five counts of theft in office, in violation of R.C. 2121.41, and one count of tampering with records, in violation of R.C. 2913.42), and 4 January Term, 1996 Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 150 , 552 N.E.2d 941 (attorney convicted of grand theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02[A][2]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
v.
Pizzedaz
No. 93-2176.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 23, 1994.
628 N.E.2d 1359
Geoffrey Stem, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator., Gold, Rotatori, Schwartz & Gibbons Co., L.P.A., and John S. Pyle, for respondent.
Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the board’s findings that respondent violated DR 1 — 102(A)(3), (4) and (6). However, we reject the indefinite suspension the board recommended. Respondent’s misconduct manifests the public’s worst fear about lawyers. His crimes prove that he will take advantage of public trust if given the opportunity. Thus, unlike the board and panel, we are not impressed with respondent’s admission of guilt, remorse, full restitution, and efforts to comply with the terms of his probation. Rather, we find respondent’s dishonesty deserving of the full measure of our disciplinary authority. • Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Dissent

Douglas, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would follow the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

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