Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

697 N.E.2d 661, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1201
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero. Read the opinion of the Court — 78 Ohio St. 3d 351
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided July 21, 1998·No. No. 96-1432·Published

Opinion

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent Christopher Thomas Cicero, Attorney Registration No. 0039882, last known address in Columbus, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of May 14,1997, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of one year, 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 this court that Christopher Thomas Cicero 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), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 351, 678 N.E.2d 517.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero, 697 N.E.2d 661, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1201 (Ohio 1998).

697 N.E.2d 661 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero
678 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)