Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sopkovich

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sopkovich

101 Ohio St. 3d 1212

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 2004

DocketNo. 1995-1199

StatusPublished

This text of 101 Ohio St. 3d 1212 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sopkovich) 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. Sopkovich, 101 Ohio St. 3d 1212 (Ohio 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Carol A. Sopkovich, Attorney Registration No. 0016795, last known business address in Girard, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of March 5,1996, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years with one year stayed 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 respondent 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 case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Sopkovich (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 192, 661 N.E.2d 1066.

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

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