Home/Ohio Supreme Court/In re Nicotera

In re Nicotera

602 N.E.2d 612, 65 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3110
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1992
DocketNo. 92-1486
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 602 N.E.2d 612 (In re Nicotera) 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 Nicotera, 602 N.E.2d 612, 65 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3110 (Ohio 1992).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio is disciplined by another jurisdiction, Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) requires this court to “impose the identical or comparable discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction * * unless the attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence that such discipline would be unwarranted. Nicotera has not done so. Moreover, his inactive status in Ohio does not preclude discipline. Accordingly, Thomas C. Nicotera is publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Pickrel (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 6872 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
602 N.E.2d 612, 65 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nicotera-ohio-1992.