1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ohio
  4. 66 Ohio
  5. 66 Ohio St.3d 199 (1993)
 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SOUERS

No. 92-2531.

66 Ohio St.3d 199 (1993)

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SOUERS.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided May 12, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L. Chesley, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Yost & Yost and Stephen T. Yost; Gottfried & Palmer Co., L.P.A., and Gary J. Gottfried, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

We reject the board's conclusions of law and recommendation for two reasons. First, Canon 3(A)(6) permits public judicial comment to explain court procedure.1 Respondent's defense of his sentencing order, while less than judicious, was provided to publicly explain his procedure in the underlying criminal case. Thus, we cannot discipline respondent for conduct the canon expressly authorizes.

Second, neither respondent...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases