disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Case Summaries- 224
initial agreement and put into place the practices that led to all charges against him and the other
respondents. The Supreme Court found the board‘s recommendations appropriate and so ordered. See
UPL case Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions LLC, 123 Ohio St.3d 107, 2009-Ohio-4174.
Rules Violated: (Mullaney) DR 2-103(C), 3-101(A), 3-102(A), 6-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(1);
(Brooking & Moeves) DR 2-103(C), 3-101(A), 3-102(A), 3-103(A), 6-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(1)
Aggravation: (All) (c), (d), (h)
Mitigation: (All) (a), (b), (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand (Mullaney); One-year suspension, stayed
(Brooking); Enjoined from practing for two years pro hac vice (Moeves)