Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

108 Ohio St. 3d 1210

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Disciplinary Counsel v. King. Read the opinion of the Court — 103 Ohio St. 3d 438 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 30, 2006·No. No. 2004-0495·Published

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, James C. King, Attorney Registration No. 0000774, last known business address in Lima, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 27, 2004, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with the second year stayed, 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 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. King, 103 Ohio St.3d 438, 2004-Ohio-5470, 816 N.E.2d 1040.

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

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, James C. King, Attorney Registration No. 0000774, last known business address in Lima, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 27, 2004, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with the second year stayed, 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 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. King, 103 Ohio St.3d 438, 2004-Ohio-5470, 816 N.E.2d 1040.

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

Disciplinary Counsel v. King, 108 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

108 Ohio St. 3d 1210 (Disciplinary Counsel v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related