Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

786 N.E.2d 895, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1214

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 2003

DocketNo. 2002-0294

StatusPublished

This text of 786 N.E.2d 895 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny) 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. Dzienny, 786 N.E.2d 895, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1214 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Dzienny, a.k.a. Michael Andrew Dzienny, Attorney Registration No. 0037618, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of July 31, 2002, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of 18 months with one year suspended on condition, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that Michael Dzienny, a.k.a. Michael Andrew Dzienny, be and hereby is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} 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.

{¶ 5} For earlier cases, see Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny, 96 Ohio St.3d 144, 2002-Ohio-3611, 772 N.E.2d 627, and Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E.2d 499.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Lundberg Stratton and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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