Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford

2013 Ohio 1199, 986 N.E.2d 1010, 135 Ohio St. 3d 1290

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 2013

Docket2011-0408

StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ohio 1199 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Stafford) 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. Stafford, 2013 Ohio 1199, 986 N.E.2d 1010, 135 Ohio St. 3d 1290 (Ohio 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Joseph Gregory Stafford, Attorney Registration No. 0023863, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of March 8, 2012, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 12 months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, 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.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

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

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Joseph Gregory Stafford, Attorney Registration No. 0023863, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court, coming now to consider its order of March 8, 2012, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 12 months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).

{¶ 3} Therefore, 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.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2013 Ohio 1199, 986 N.E.2d 1010, 135 Ohio St. 3d 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-stafford-ohio-2013.