Disciplinary Counsel v. Callaghan

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Callaghan

761 N.E.2d 627, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 260

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 2002

Docket01-1994

StatusPublished

This text of 761 N.E.2d 627 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Callaghan) 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. Callaghan, 761 N.E.2d 627, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 260 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

On June 1, 2001, this court suspended respondent, Thomas Callaghan, a.k.a. Thomas Matthew Callaghan, Attorney Registration No. 0021661, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, from the practice of law for failure to comply with Gov.Bar R. X (“Continuing Legal Education”). On December 20, 2001, petitioner, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended motion for order to appear and show cause. Respondent did not respond to the motion. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be, and is hereby granted, and that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date of this order why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to obey this court’s order of suspension.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

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

On June 1, 2001, this court suspended respondent, Thomas Callaghan, a.k.a. Thomas Matthew Callaghan, Attorney Registration No. 0021661, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, from the practice of law for failure to comply with Gov.Bar R. X (“Continuing Legal Education”). On December 20, 2001, petitioner, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended motion for order to appear and show cause. Respondent did not respond to the motion. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be, and is hereby granted, and that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date of this order why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to obey this court’s order of suspension.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 N.E.2d 627, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1437, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-callaghan-ohio-2002.