In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Haas

Ohio Supreme Court

In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Haas

2015 Ohio 115, 26 N.E.3d 813, 141 Ohio St. 3d 1262

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

DocketCLE-2004-64540

StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ohio 115 (In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Haas) 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

In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Haas, 2015 Ohio 115, 26 N.E.3d 813, 141 Ohio St. 3d 1262 (Ohio 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(l)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including respondent, Sheila Ann Haas, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2002-2003 reporting period.

{¶ 2} On April 8, 2005, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7), complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, and complied with the April 8, 2005 order and all other orders of the court and this court ordered respondent reinstated.

{¶ 3} On January 9, 2015, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2) finding that respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X and recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during the suspension by this court’s order of suspension. Respondent has satisfied all the requirements of this court’s order of suspension.

{¶ 4} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Sheila Ann Haas, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.

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 matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(l)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including respondent, Sheila Ann Haas, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2002-2003 reporting period.

{¶ 2} On April 8, 2005, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7), complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, and complied with the April 8, 2005 order and all other orders of the court and this court ordered respondent reinstated.

{¶ 3} On January 9, 2015, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2) finding that respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X and recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during the suspension by this court’s order of suspension. Respondent has satisfied all the requirements of this court’s order of suspension.

{¶ 4} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Sheila Ann Haas, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.

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 115, 26 N.E.3d 813, 141 Ohio St. 3d 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-continuing-legal-education-suspension-of-haas-ohio-2015.