Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke

2013 Ohio 19, 985 N.E.2d 505, 135 Ohio St. 3d 1227

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 2013

Docket2011-1774

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 19 (Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hartke, 2013 Ohio 19, 985 N.E.2d 505, 135 Ohio St. 3d 1227 (Ohio 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, James R. Hartke, Attorney Registration No. 0011584, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 6, 2012, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI