Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

847 N.E.2d 1217, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1206

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 5, 2006

DocketNo. 2005-0365

StatusPublished

This text of 847 N.E.2d 1217 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 847 N.E.2d 1217, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1206 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Thomas Herbert Freeman, Attorney Registration No. 0007852, last known business address in Norwalk, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 12, 2005, 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 be, and hereby 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 [1207]*1207made 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. Freeman, 106 Ohio St.3d 334, 2005-Ohio-5142, 835 N.E.2d 26.

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

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