Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Engel

Ohio Supreme Court

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Engel

860 N.E.2d 111, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1432

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 2007

Docket2004-1410

StatusPublished

This text of 860 N.E.2d 111 (Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Engel) 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

Dayton Bar Ass'n v. Engel, 860 N.E.2d 111, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1432 (Ohio 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

On December 22, 2004, this court suspended respondent for a period of two years with the last six months stayed on conditions. On January 3, 2005, respondent surrendered his attorney registration card. On March 9, 2005, this court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with the December 22, 2004, order by failing to file an affidavit of compliance. On April 18, 2005, respondent was found in contempt. On June 6, 2005, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance. This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on January 4, 2007, of respondent’s motion to purge contempt. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted, and respondent is purged of contempt of this court.

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

On December 22, 2004, this court suspended respondent for a period of two years with the last six months stayed on conditions. On January 3, 2005, respondent surrendered his attorney registration card. On March 9, 2005, this court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with the December 22, 2004, order by failing to file an affidavit of compliance. On April 18, 2005, respondent was found in contempt. On June 6, 2005, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance. This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on January 4, 2007, of respondent’s motion to purge contempt. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted, and respondent is purged of contempt of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 N.E.2d 111, 112 Ohio St. 3d 1432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dayton-bar-assn-v-engel-ohio-2007.