Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney

901 N.E.2d 230, 120 Ohio St. 3d 1222

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 2009

DocketNo. 2006-0809

StatusPublished

This text of 901 N.E.2d 230 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney) 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. Rooney, 901 N.E.2d 230, 120 Ohio St. 3d 1222 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, John James Rooney, Attorney Registration No. 0024969, last known business address in Bay Village, Ohio.

[1223]*1223{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 20, 2006, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, 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 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. Rooney, 110 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-4576, 853 N.E.2d 663.

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

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