Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson
This text of 706 N.E.2d 792 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson) 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.
Opinion
On February 19, 1999, respondent Inza E. Johnson filed an application for reinstatement to the [1412]*1412practice of law. Respondent attached to her application a document titled “Objections to the Findings and Recommendation of the Board.” Whereas objections to the findings and recommendations of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline were due no later than September 25, 1997, respondent’s submission of the objections at this time is prohibited by S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(1)(C). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent’s application for reinstatement be, and hereby is, stricken.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
706 N.E.2d 792, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1411, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-johnson-ohio-1999.