Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson

2015 Ohio 417, 32 N.E.3d 463, 142 Ohio St. 3d 1257

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 2015

Docket2013-1262

StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ohio 417 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 2015 Ohio 417, 32 N.E.3d 463, 142 Ohio St. 3d 1257 (Ohio 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause • came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Harold Lee Thompson, Attorney Registration No. 0033253, last known address in Columbus, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 12, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with the final 18 months stayed on conditions and ordered respondent upon reinstatement to complete 18 months of monitored probation, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent is placed on probation for a period of 18 months in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on June 12, 2014.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(A)(3), on or before 30 days from the date of this order relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor. It is *1258 further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

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, Harold Lee Thompson, Attorney Registration No. 0033253, last known address in Columbus, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 12, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with the final 18 months stayed on conditions and ordered respondent upon reinstatement to complete 18 months of monitored probation, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24).

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent is placed on probation for a period of 18 months in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21) and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on June 12, 2014.

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(A)(3), on or before 30 days from the date of this order relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor. It is *1258 further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(21)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2015 Ohio 417, 32 N.E.3d 463, 142 Ohio St. 3d 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-thompson-ohio-2015.