Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski

2022 Ohio 4240, 206 N.E.3d 753, 169 Ohio St. 3d 1262
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 29, 2022
Docket2022-1327
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 Ohio 4240 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski) 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. Rogalinski, 2022 Ohio 4240, 206 N.E.3d 753, 169 Ohio St. 3d 1262 (Ohio 2022).

Opinion

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4240.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROGALINSKI. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rogalinski, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4240.] Attorneys at law—Reciprocal discipline from the Supreme Court of Kentucky— public reprimand—Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2022-1327—Submitted October 27, 2022—Decided November 29, 2022.) ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, No. 22-SC-0144-KB. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(20). {¶ 2} On October 27, 2022, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky entered June 16, 2022, in Rogalinski v. Kentucky Bar Assn., Case No. 2022-SC-0144-KB, imposing a public reprimand upon respondent. On October 31, 2022, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. No objections were filed, and this cause was considered by the court. {¶ 3} On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(20)(C), respondent, Clara Elizabeth Rogalinski, Attorney Registration No. 0100241, last known business address in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, is publicly reprimand, and this entry shall constitute the public reprimand. This public reprimand shall be considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed for subsequent misconduct. {¶ 4} It is further ordered by the court that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against respondent by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order, the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of that award. {¶ 5} It is further ordered that respondent shall keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications. {¶ 6} It is further ordered that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, to respondent’s last known address. {¶ 7} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2). O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. ______________________

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 Ohio 4240, 206 N.E.3d 753, 169 Ohio St. 3d 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-rogalinski-ohio-2022.