Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols

2001 Ohio 106, 92 Ohio St. 3d 1202

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 2001

Docket1992-1324

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2001 Ohio 106 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols) 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. Nichols, 2001 Ohio 106, 92 Ohio St. 3d 1202 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St. 1202.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NICHOLS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols, 2001-Ohio-106.] (No. 92-1324—Submitted and decided May 17, 2001.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent LeRoy Alvin Nichols, Attorney Registration No. 0015743, last known address in Columbus, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court now considers its order of March 17, 1993, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, with the suspension to follow respondent’s disciplinary sanction entered in Supreme Court case No. 90-1705, and further ordered that respondent’s suspension be stayed on condition he serve a third year of probation, to commence August 28, 1993. The court also considers its orders of September 14, 1994, and November 17, 1994, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his six-month suspension. The court finds that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore, {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that LeRoy Alvin Nichols 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. For earlier cases, see Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1990), 61 Ohio St.3d 546, 575 N.E.2d 799; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 1486, 581 N.E.2d 1391; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 1422, 598 N.E.2d 1172; Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 54, 607 N.E.2d 1068; Columbus SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1444, 639 N.E.2d 112; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1410, 641 N.E.2d 1108; and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 1201, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St. 1202.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NICHOLS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols, 2001-Ohio-106.] (No. 92-1324—Submitted and decided May 17, 2001.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent LeRoy Alvin Nichols, Attorney Registration No. 0015743, last known address in Columbus, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court now considers its order of March 17, 1993, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, with the suspension to follow respondent’s disciplinary sanction entered in Supreme Court case No. 90-1705, and further ordered that respondent’s suspension be stayed on condition he serve a third year of probation, to commence August 28, 1993. The court also considers its orders of September 14, 1994, and November 17, 1994, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his six-month suspension. The court finds that respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore, {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that LeRoy Alvin Nichols 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. For earlier cases, see Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1990), 61 Ohio St.3d 546, 575 N.E.2d 799; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 1486, 581 N.E.2d 1391; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 1422, 598 N.E.2d 1172; Disciplinary Counsel v. Nichols (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 54, 607 N.E.2d 1068; Columbus SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1444, 639 N.E.2d 112; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1410, 641 N.E.2d 1108; and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nichols (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 1201, ___ N.E.2d ___. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Ohio 106, 92 Ohio St. 3d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-nichols-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack