In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education

704 N.E.2d 257, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1460, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 39

DecidedJanuary 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 704 N.E.2d 257 (In re Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education) 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 Report of the Commission on Continuing Legal Education, 704 N.E.2d 257, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1460, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 39 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(l)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, the respondents herein, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1996— 1997 reporting period.

On November 18,1998, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(1), this court issued to each respondent an order to show cause why the commission’s recommendation should not be adopted and an order so entered against the respondent. One hundred three respondents filed objections to the commission’s recommendation. Pursuant to Gov.Bar. R. X(6)(B)(2), the commission may file an answer brief to the objections within fifteen days.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the commission may consolidate its responses to the respondents’ objections in a single answer brief that shall be filed no later than February 19,1999.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the notice and service requirements of [1461]*1461Gov.Bar R. X(6)(C) shall not apply to this order; and announcement and publication of this order by the Supreme Court Reporter in the Ohio Official Reports and the Ohio State Bar Association Report shall constitute notice to the respondents.

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

ORDER

This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(l)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, the respondents herein, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1996— 1997 reporting period.

On November 18,1998, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(1), this court issued to each respondent an order to show cause why the commission’s recommendation should not be adopted and an order so entered against the respondent. One hundred three respondents filed objections to the commission’s recommendation. Pursuant to Gov.Bar. R. X(6)(B)(2), the commission may file an answer brief to the objections within fifteen days.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the commission may consolidate its responses to the respondents’ objections in a single answer brief that shall be filed no later than February 19,1999.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the notice and service requirements of [1461]*1461Gov.Bar R. X(6)(C) shall not apply to this order; and announcement and publication of this order by the Supreme Court Reporter in the Ohio Official Reports and the Ohio State Bar Association Report shall constitute notice to the respondents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 N.E.2d 257, 84 Ohio St. 3d 1460, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-report-of-the-commission-on-continuing-legal-education-ohio-1999.