Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nielsen

754 N.E.2d 1267, 93 Ohio St. 3d 1202
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 30, 2001
DocketNo. 01-895
StatusPublished

This text of 754 N.E.2d 1267 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nielsen) 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. Nielsen, 754 N.E.2d 1267, 93 Ohio St. 3d 1202 (Ohio 2001).

Opinion

This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).

On May 10, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals entered March 1, 2001, in In re Kenneth E. Nielsen, Jr., 768 A.2d 41, in case No. 00-BG-1464, in which respondent, Kenneth Edward Nielsen, Jr., was publicly censured. On June 15, 2001, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed no response to the show cause order. This cause was considered by the court and on consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Kenneth E. Nielsen, Jr., a.k.a. Kenneth Edward Nielsen, Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0043952, last known business address in Alexandria, Virginia, be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within ninety days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against the respondent by the Clients’ Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration Office.

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 [1204]*1204made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

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

Related

In Re Nielsen
768 A.2d 41 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
754 N.E.2d 1267, 93 Ohio St. 3d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-nielsen-ohio-2001.