Per Curiam.
Upon review of the record, we agree with the board's findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), as well with its conclusion that respondent did not violate DR 1-102(A)(3). We, therefore, reject the argument raised in relator's objections to the board's report—that respondent's theft in office convictions involved "moral turpitude."
Acts of moral turpitude, although not subject to exact definition, Cincinnati Bar...
Let's get started
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.