Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill

546 N.E.2d 205, 46 Ohio St. 3d 605, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 304

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill. Read the opinion of the Court — 39 Ohio St. 3d 337 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 1, 1989·No. No. D.D. 88-13·Published

Opinion

On November 16, 1988, Timothy Joseph O’Neill was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.¹ He was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings totalling $992.37.

O’Neill moves the court for permission to pay the costs in installments of $50 per month after an initial payment of $150. This motion is granted.

An application for reinstatement to the practice of law filed by O’Neill will not be considered until all costs are paid in full.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

On November 16, 1988, Timothy Joseph O’Neill was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.¹ He was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings totalling $992.37.

O’Neill moves the court for permission to pay the costs in installments of $50 per month after an initial payment of $150. This motion is granted.

An application for reinstatement to the practice of law filed by O’Neill will not be considered until all costs are paid in full.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, 546 N.E.2d 205, 46 Ohio St. 3d 605, 1989 Ohio LEXIS 304 (Ohio 1989).

Pincite

546 N.E.2d 205 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related