In re Nicotera

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Nicotera

602 N.E.2d 612, 65 Ohio St. 3d 163, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 3110

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 9, 1992·No. No. 92-1486·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

602 N.E.2d 612 (In re Nicotera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related