Disciplinary Counsel v. Firstenberger

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Firstenberger

118 Ohio St. 3d 1208

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 9, 2008

DocketNo. 2007-1349

StatusPublished

This text of 118 Ohio St. 3d 1208 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Firstenberger) 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. Firstenberger, 118 Ohio St. 3d 1208 (Ohio 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Lester Firstenberger, Attorney Registration No. 0066155, last known business address in Pittsfield, New Hampshire.

{¶2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 18, 2007, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months and one day and conditioned reinstatement on his reinstatement in Massachusetts, 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.

[1209]*1209{¶ 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.

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

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Lester Firstenberger, Attorney Registration No. 0066155, last known business address in Pittsfield, New Hampshire.

{¶2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 18, 2007, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months and one day and conditioned reinstatement on his reinstatement in Massachusetts, 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.

[1209]*1209{¶ 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.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 Ohio St. 3d 1208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-firstenberger-ohio-2008.