Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen

725 N.E.2d 626, 88 Ohio St. 3d 268
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 22, 2000·No. No. 99-1399·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

When an attorney has been disciplined in another state, Gov. Bar R. V(11)(F)(4)(a)(ii) requires us to impose an identical or comparable discipline unless the disciplined attorney shows by clear and convincing evidence that “the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hine (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 448, 449, 687 N.E.2d 420, 421. Respondent has not done so. “New Jersey disbarment is final.” In the Matter of Valentin (1997), 147 N.J. 499, 505, 688 A.2d 602, 605. Therefore, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen, 725 N.E.2d 626, 88 Ohio St. 3d 268 (Ohio 2000).

725 N.E.2d 626 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Webster
789 N.E.2d 191 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen
2000 Ohio 333 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)