Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren

2009 Ohio 2465, 906 N.E.2d 1135, 121 Ohio St. 3d 1241

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 2009

Docket2007-0333

StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ohio 2465 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren) 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. Broeren, 2009 Ohio 2465, 906 N.E.2d 1135, 121 Ohio St. 3d 1241 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, P. Robert Broeren, Attorney Registration No. 0069166, last known business address in Gambier, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 10, 2007, 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). Therefore,

{¶ 3} 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.

-{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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