Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

2009 Ohio 3725, 910 N.E.2d 461, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1213

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 2009

Docket1998-2213

StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ohio 3725 (Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise) 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. Wise, 2009 Ohio 3725, 910 N.E.2d 461, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1213 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on December 17, 2008, of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, James Russell Wise, Attorney Registration No. 0039046, last known address in Youngstown, Ohio. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(10)(F), respondent’s petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board filed its final report in this court on April 10, 2009, recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. No objections to the final report were filed. Upon consideration thereof,

{¶ 2} It is ordered by this court that the petition for reinstatement of respondent is granted and that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.

{¶ 3} 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.

{¶ 4} 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.

{¶ 5} 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.

{¶ 6} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 85 Ohio St.3d 169, 707 N.E.2d 852.

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

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on December 17, 2008, of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, James Russell Wise, Attorney Registration No. 0039046, last known address in Youngstown, Ohio. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(10)(F), respondent’s petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board filed its final report in this court on April 10, 2009, recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. No objections to the final report were filed. Upon consideration thereof,

{¶ 2} It is ordered by this court that the petition for reinstatement of respondent is granted and that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.

{¶ 3} 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.

{¶ 4} 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.

{¶ 5} 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.

{¶ 6} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 85 Ohio St.3d 169, 707 N.E.2d 852.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 3725, 910 N.E.2d 461, 122 Ohio St. 3d 1213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disciplinary-counsel-v-wise-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack