Disciplinary Counsel v. Sorkin

722 N.E.2d 89, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 30
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 7, 2000
Docket98-575
StatusPublished

This text of 722 N.E.2d 89 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Sorkin) 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. Sorkin, 722 N.E.2d 89, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 30 (Ohio 2000).

Opinion

IT IS ORDERED by this court, sua sponte, that Samuel M. Sorkin, Attorney Registration No. 0021027, last known business address in Deerfield, Illinois, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of June 23, 1998, to wit, failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 23,1998.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
722 N.E.2d 89, 87 Ohio St. 3d 1484, 2000 Ohio LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-sorkin-ohio-2000.