Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Cicero

697 N.E.2d 661, 83 Ohio St. 3d 1201

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 21, 1998

DocketNo. 96-1432

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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