 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toledo Bar Association v. Dzienny7/31/2002
ed in its complaint. Relator continues to advocate the penalty jointly recommended as an appropriate sanction.
. Respondent conceded that he considered the investment that Amon proposed a highly unusual arrangement at first, but with research, he determined that Wiant could legally assign her insurable interest to others. Relator is satisfied with that assessment, and we have no evidence upon which to disagree. However distasteful respondent's efforts to invest in life insurance covering his friend's mother were, that fact alone will not support the sinister motive the board ascribes to him, and we will not augment his penalty because of it.
. Respondent's prior disciplinary offense notwithstanding, we are convinced that his remorse, character evidence, and cooperation justify the penalty recommended by the parties. Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months, with one year of that sanction suspended on the condition that he commit no further misconduct. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Nader, F.E. Sweeney, and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., dissent.
Robert A. Nader, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
Cook, J., dissenting.
. Because I would adopt the recommendation of the panel and the board and indefinitely suspend Dzienny from the practice of law, I respectfully dissent.
Pfeifer, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
|