Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino

Ohio Supreme Court

Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino

2000 Ohio 480, 87 Ohio St. 3d 466

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 2000

Docket1999-1560

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2000 Ohio 480 (Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino) 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

Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino, 2000 Ohio 480, 87 Ohio St. 3d 466 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 466.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RUBINO. [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino, 2000-Ohio-480.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Failure to cooperate in discipline investigation. (No. 99-1560—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided January 5, 2000.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-31. __________________ {¶ 1} On June 8, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, Corey J. Rubino of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0058480, with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules and with failure to cooperate in the investigation it conducted with respect to the violations. {¶ 2} After respondent answered, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on stipulations in which the relator withdrew the charges in the complaint and the respondent agreed that he had not fully cooperated in the attempted investigation of the complaint by the relator. {¶ 3} Based upon the stipulations, the panel concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing). The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. __________________ Mary Ann Rini, Joan M. Litzow and John D. Sutula, for relator. Carl C. Monastra, for respondent. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. An attorney is required to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation even when the subject of the investigation is himself. Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083, 1084. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 466.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RUBINO. [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino, 2000-Ohio-480.] Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Failure to cooperate in discipline investigation. (No. 99-1560—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided January 5, 2000.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-31. __________________ {¶ 1} On June 8, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, Corey J. Rubino of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0058480, with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules and with failure to cooperate in the investigation it conducted with respect to the violations. {¶ 2} After respondent answered, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on stipulations in which the relator withdrew the charges in the complaint and the respondent agreed that he had not fully cooperated in the attempted investigation of the complaint by the relator. {¶ 3} Based upon the stipulations, the panel concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing). The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. __________________ Mary Ann Rini, Joan M. Litzow and John D. Sutula, for relator. Carl C. Monastra, for respondent. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam. {¶ 4} We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. An attorney is required to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation even when the subject of the investigation is himself. Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083, 1084. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Ohio 480, 87 Ohio St. 3d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuyahoga-cty-bar-assn-v-rubino-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack