Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado

692 N.E.2d 1021, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1518, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1072

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1998

Docket95-1665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 692 N.E.2d 1021 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado) 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. Fortado, 692 N.E.2d 1021, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1518, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1072 (Ohio 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

On February 28, 1996, the court suspended respondent, Matthew Fortado, for two years, with one year stayed, on conditions. On July 23,1997, respondent applied for reinstatement, and on August 22, 1997, this court stayed the second year of the suspension and placed respondent on probation for one year on the condition that he continue to fulfill the terms of his Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc. contract and that he be monitored by two attorneys. On March 2, 1998, respondent filed an application to terminate probation, and on April 6, 1998, relator filed a response. Because respondent’s one-year probationary period has not yet expired, respondent’s application for termination of probation is premature. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for termination of probation filed by respondent be, and is, hereby, stricken.

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

On February 28, 1996, the court suspended respondent, Matthew Fortado, for two years, with one year stayed, on conditions. On July 23,1997, respondent applied for reinstatement, and on August 22, 1997, this court stayed the second year of the suspension and placed respondent on probation for one year on the condition that he continue to fulfill the terms of his Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc. contract and that he be monitored by two attorneys. On March 2, 1998, respondent filed an application to terminate probation, and on April 6, 1998, relator filed a response. Because respondent’s one-year probationary period has not yet expired, respondent’s application for termination of probation is premature. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for termination of probation filed by respondent be, and is, hereby, stricken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 N.E.2d 1021, 81 Ohio St. 3d 1518, 1998 Ohio LEXIS 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-fortado-ohio-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack