Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller

2016 Ohio 53, 47 N.E.3d 157, 145 Ohio St. 3d 1207

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 12, 2016

Docket2013-0572

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 Ohio 53 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller) 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. Troller, 2016 Ohio 53, 47 N.E.3d 157, 145 Ohio St. 3d 1207 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, David Edward Troller, Attorney Registration No. 0013296, last known address in Terrace Park, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of January 14, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years with six months stayed on conditions, 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.

{¶ 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(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, David Edward Troller, Attorney Registration No. 0013296, last known address in Terrace Park, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of January 14, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years with six months stayed on conditions, 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.

{¶ 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(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)

2016 Ohio 53, 47 N.E.3d 157, 145 Ohio St. 3d 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-troller-ohio-2016.