Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko

2009 Ohio 6879, 918 N.E.2d 1007, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1201
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 2009
Docket2009-1957
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 6879 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko) 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. Shimko, 2009 Ohio 6879, 918 N.E.2d 1007, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1201 (Ohio 2009).

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).

{¶ 2} On October 26, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered June 23, 2009, in In the Matter of Timothy A. Shimko, in case No. SB-09-0061-D, publicly censuring respondent. On November 3, 2009, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed a response to the show cause order. This cause was considered by the court and on consideration thereof,

{¶ 3} It is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Timothy Andrew Shimko, Attorney Registration No. 0006736, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, be publicly reprimanded.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered, sua sponte, 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 Clients’ Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order and all other orders in this case by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Office of Attorney Services.

{¶ 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(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.

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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko (Slip Opinion)
2019 Ohio 2881 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2019)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko
2012 Ohio 5694 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2009 Ohio 6879, 918 N.E.2d 1007, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-shimko-ohio-2009.