Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels

2017 Ohio 4432
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 22, 2017
Docket2015-1638
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 Ohio 4432 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels) 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
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels, 2017 Ohio 4432 (Ohio 2017).

Opinion

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-4432.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BARTELS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-4432.] (No. 2015-1638—Submitted June 20, 2017—Decided June 22, 2017.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. ____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, N. Shannon Bartels, Attorney Registration No. 0064012, last known address in Elida, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 14, 2016, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent for a period of one year, with six months stayed on conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Ohio. It is further ordered that in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on June 14, 2016, respondent shall serve one-year of monitored probation. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(A)(3). It is further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation. {¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(21). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated. {¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). {¶ 7} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-3333, __ N.E.3d __. O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. ________________________

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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels (Slip Opinion)
2016 Ohio 3333 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bartels
2017 Ohio 5861 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ohio 4432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-bartels-ohio-2017.