Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland

863 N.E.2d 1048, 113 Ohio St. 3d 1242

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

DocketNo. 2004-1812

StatusPublished

This text of 863 N.E.2d 1048 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland) 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. Holland, 863 N.E.2d 1048, 113 Ohio St. 3d 1242 (Ohio 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Darrell Wendell Holland, Attorney Registration No. 0022551, last known business address in Canton, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 14, 2005, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of one year, 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.

{¶ 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.

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Holland, 106 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-5322, 835 N.E.2d 361.

Moyer, C.J., 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