Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel

1999 Ohio 243, 86 Ohio St. 3d 1215

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

Docket1984-DD8420

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1999 Ohio 243 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel) 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. Rothermel, 1999 Ohio 243, 86 Ohio St. 3d 1215 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 1215.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROTHERMEL. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel, 1999-Ohio-243.] (No. DD 84-20—Submitted and decided September 9, 1999.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. __________________

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Christian Dean Rothermel, Attorney Registration No. 0043140, last known business address in Trenton, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of December 31, 1984, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V, former Section 6(C), 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). Therefore, {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent, Christian Dean Rothermel, 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. Rothermel (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 121, 15 OBR 272, 472 N.E.2d 1072. 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 opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 1215.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROTHERMEL. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel, 1999-Ohio-243.] (No. DD 84-20—Submitted and decided September 9, 1999.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. __________________

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Christian Dean Rothermel, Attorney Registration No. 0043140, last known business address in Trenton, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of December 31, 1984, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V, former Section 6(C), 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). Therefore, {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent, Christian Dean Rothermel, 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. Rothermel (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 121, 15 OBR 272, 472 N.E.2d 1072. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Ohio 243, 86 Ohio St. 3d 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-rothermel-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack