
    Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Nigolian.
    [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 147.]
    (No. 99-1162
    Submitted August 25, 1999
    Decided October 27, 1999.)
    
      
      Becker & Mishkind Co., L.P.A., and Howard D. Mishkind; Kohrman, Jackson & Krantz and Ari H. Jaffe; Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, L.L.P., and Christopher M. Ernst, for relator.
    
      N. Stephen Nigolian, pro se, and Mary L. Cibella, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Given respondent’s restitution, remorse, and ultimate cooperation in the proceedings, a definite suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 185, 580 N.E.2d 1076. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed on the condition that during the first six months of the suspension, he take six hours of continuing legal education courses in law office management. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
      
      . We deny grievant Stanek’s motion for leave to file objections to the board’s report.
     