Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth

769 N.E.2d 399, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1483

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 2002

Docket2000-2341

StatusPublished

This text of 769 N.E.2d 399 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth) 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. Furth, 769 N.E.2d 399, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1483 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

On September 19, 2001, this court permanently disbarred respondent, Thomas Craig Furth, Attorney Registration No. 0033870. On March 12, 2002, this court issued an order directing respondent to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with the September 19, 2001 order, to wit, failure to file an affidavit of compliance and failure to surrender his certificate of admission on or before October 19, 2001, and failure to pay board costs on or before December 18, 2001. On April 26, 2002, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that, respondent, Thomas Craig Furth, be, and hereby is, found in contempt for failure to comply with the court’s September 19, 2001 order. It is further ordered that this matter be referred to the Attorney General for collection of board costs, including any accrued interest. It is further ordered that respondent’s request to pay board costs in installments be, and hereby is, denied.

Douglas, J., not participating.

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

On September 19, 2001, this court permanently disbarred respondent, Thomas Craig Furth, Attorney Registration No. 0033870. On March 12, 2002, this court issued an order directing respondent to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with the September 19, 2001 order, to wit, failure to file an affidavit of compliance and failure to surrender his certificate of admission on or before October 19, 2001, and failure to pay board costs on or before December 18, 2001. On April 26, 2002, respondent filed an affidavit of compliance. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that, respondent, Thomas Craig Furth, be, and hereby is, found in contempt for failure to comply with the court’s September 19, 2001 order. It is further ordered that this matter be referred to the Attorney General for collection of board costs, including any accrued interest. It is further ordered that respondent’s request to pay board costs in installments be, and hereby is, denied.

Douglas, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

769 N.E.2d 399, 95 Ohio St. 3d 1483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-furth-ohio-2002.