Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante

676 N.E.2d 516, 78 Ohio St. 3d 74

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 26, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 676 N.E.2d 516 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante) 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bustamante, 676 N.E.2d 516, 78 Ohio St. 3d 74 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) states that when an attorney is disciplined in another jurisdiction, this court “shall impose the identical or comparable discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction, unless the attorney proves * * * (b) [t]hat the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio.”

As both respondent’s former counsel and present counsel point out in their respective filings, a disbarment under Florida State Bar Rule 3 — 5.1(f) permits the respondent to apply for readmission at any time after November 18, 1998, five years from the effective date of his Florida disbarment. In contrast, disbarment under Ohio’s Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C) would bar respondent from ever being readmitted to the practice of law in Ohio. Thus, a Florida “disbarment” is comparable to an Ohio “indefinite suspension.”

Therefore, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with permission to apply for readmission after November 18, 1998, if he has been readmitted to the practice of law in Florida. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) states that when an attorney is disciplined in another jurisdiction, this court “shall impose the identical or comparable discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction, unless the attorney proves * * * (b) [t]hat the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio.”

As both respondent’s former counsel and present counsel point out in their respective filings, a disbarment under Florida State Bar Rule 3 — 5.1(f) permits the respondent to apply for readmission at any time after November 18, 1998, five years from the effective date of his Florida disbarment. In contrast, disbarment under Ohio’s Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C) would bar respondent from ever being readmitted to the practice of law in Ohio. Thus, a Florida “disbarment” is comparable to an Ohio “indefinite suspension.”

Therefore, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with permission to apply for readmission after November 18, 1998, if he has been readmitted to the practice of law in Florida. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 N.E.2d 516, 78 Ohio St. 3d 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-bustamante-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack