Disciplinary Counsel v. Large

2011 Ohio 1081, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1202
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 10, 2011·No. 2009-0041·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, John Harold Large, Attorney Registration No. 0068732, last known business address in Warren, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of May 6, 2009, 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).

{¶ 3} Therefore, 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. Large, 122 Ohio St.3d 35, 2009-Ohio-2022, 907 N.E.2d 1162.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Large, 2011 Ohio 1081, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1202 (Ohio 2011).

2011 Ohio 1081 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Large) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Manore (Slip Opinion)
2019 Ohio 3846 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2019)