Disciplinary Counsel v. Eisenberg

Per Curiam. After review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. We said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, and recently repeated in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 689 N.E.2d 538, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Bandy (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 291, 690 N.E.2d 1280, “[w]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.” But, as the board found here, respondent’s action was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished legal career and not a course of conduct. We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.