Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker

624 N.E.2d 1059, 68 Ohio St. 3d 1207, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2696
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker. Read the opinion of the Court — 65 Ohio St. 3d 302
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 29, 1993·No. No. 92-1348·Published

Opinion

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, John M. Baker, Attorney Registration No. 0017471, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of December 14, 1992, suspending respondent, John M. Baker, from the practice’ of law in Ohio for a period of one year pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V (6)(B)(3), finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that John M. Baker be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1).

[1208] For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 302, 603 N.E.2d 990.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker, 624 N.E.2d 1059, 68 Ohio St. 3d 1207, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2696 (Ohio 1993).

624 N.E.2d 1059 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baker
603 N.E.2d 990 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)