Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

609 N.E.2d 561, 66 Ohio St. 3d 1216, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 813

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood. Read the opinion of the Court — 74 Ohio St. 3d 596 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 17, 1993·No. Nos. 89-1093 and 91-1249·Published

Opinion

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement, which this court shall consider as an application for termination of probation, by respondent, James E. Caywood, Attorney Registration No. 0020157, last known business address in Euclid, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of November 15,1989, suspending respondent, James E. Caywood, from the practice of law for a period of two years, but staying said suspension pending his successful completion of two years of probation, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(9).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the probation of James E. Caywood be, and hereby is, terminated.

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).

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 186, 546 N.E.2d 411.

On Application for Termination of Probation.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, James E. Caywood.

The court coming now to consider its order of December 11, 1991, suspending respondent, James E. Caywood, from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year pursuant to Gov.Bar R. (7)(c) (now [6][B][3]), finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that James E. Caywood 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).

[1217]*1217For earlier case, see Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 185, 580 N.E.2d 1076.

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

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement, which this court shall consider as an application for termination of probation, by respondent, James E. Caywood, Attorney Registration No. 0020157, last known business address in Euclid, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of November 15,1989, suspending respondent, James E. Caywood, from the practice of law for a period of two years, but staying said suspension pending his successful completion of two years of probation, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(9).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED by the court that the probation of James E. Caywood be, and hereby is, terminated.

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).

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 186, 546 N.E.2d 411.

On Application for Termination of Probation.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, James E. Caywood.

The court coming now to consider its order of December 11, 1991, suspending respondent, James E. Caywood, from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year pursuant to Gov.Bar R. (7)(c) (now [6][B][3]), finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that James E. Caywood 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).

[1217]*1217For earlier case, see Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 185, 580 N.E.2d 1076.

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood, 609 N.E.2d 561, 66 Ohio St. 3d 1216, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 813 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

609 N.E.2d 561 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related