Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash

625 N.E.2d 617, 68 Ohio St. 3d 1213
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash. Read the opinion of the Court — 68 Ohio St. 3d 12
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 6, 1994·No. No. 93-1335·Published

Opinion

On Application for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, David Lindsay Lash, Attorney Registration No. 0031571, last known business address in Beachwood, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of December 8, 1993, suspending respondent, David Lindsay Lash, from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year, with the suspension to have begun on February 19, 1992, pursuant to [1214] Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), 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 the court that David Lindsay Lash 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).

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 12, 623 N.E.2d 28.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash, 625 N.E.2d 617, 68 Ohio St. 3d 1213 (Ohio 1994).

625 N.E.2d 617 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lash
623 N.E.2d 28 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)