In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Pringle

Ohio Supreme Court

In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Pringle

2013 Ohio 3169, 136 Ohio St. 3d 1246, 2013 WL 3827293

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 2013

DocketCLE-1995-31357

StatusPublished

This text of 2013 Ohio 3169 (In Re Continuing Legal Education Suspension of Pringle) 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 Pringle, 2013 Ohio 3169, 136 Ohio St. 3d 1246, 2013 WL 3827293 (Ohio 2013).

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), 68 Ohio St.3d CIII, CX-CXI (1994). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1993-1994 reporting period.

{¶ 2} On August 12, 1996, 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), id. at CXI and CIX. The court further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(7), respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, respondent complies with this and all other orders of the court, and this court orders respondent reinstated.

{¶ 3} On May 6, 2013, the commission filed a report pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(7), 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 has 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, Elbert Roy Pringle, 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), 68 Ohio St.3d CIII, CX-CXI (1994). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1993-1994 reporting period.

{¶ 2} On August 12, 1996, 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), id. at CXI and CIX. The court further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(7), respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, respondent complies with this and all other orders of the court, and this court orders respondent reinstated.

{¶ 3} On May 6, 2013, the commission filed a report pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(7), 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 has 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, Elbert Roy Pringle, 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)

2013 Ohio 3169, 136 Ohio St. 3d 1246, 2013 WL 3827293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-continuing-legal-education-suspension-of-pringle-ohio-2013.