Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Good

114 Ohio St. 3d 204
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 18, 2007
DocketNo. 2007-0310
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 Ohio St. 3d 204 (Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Good) 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
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Good, 114 Ohio St. 3d 204 (Ohio 2007).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, John Derek Good of Bradenton, Florida, Attorney Registration No. 0058514, to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice law for six months based on findings that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida and thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 3-101(B) (prohibiting the practice of law in violation of the professional regulations of that jurisdiction). On review, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a six-month suspension is appropriate for respondent’s violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

{¶ 2} Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged respondent with the cited misconduct, and the parties thereafter entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement. See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. A panel of the board recommended acceptance of the agreement, in which the parties stipulated to the violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 3 — 101(B) and proposed the six-month suspension. The board also recommends acceptance of the agreement.

{¶ 3} The board found the disciplinary violations based on a May 24, 2006 ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida in case No. SC04-418 that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida. See Florida Bar v. Good, http://www.floridasupremecourt.Org/clerk/disposition/2006/5/04-418.pdf (full text of order), 934 So.2d 450 (2006) (table entry). According to the consent-to-discipline agreement, respondent committed six incidents of unauthorized practice, and the Florida Supreme Court issued an injunction and imposed a $1,000 monetary penalty for each incident, ordering respondent to pay $6,000.

Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel; John J. Mueller, L.L.C., and John J. Mueller, for relator. John Derek Good, pro se.

{¶ 4} We accept the consent-to-discipline agreement. Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Maciak
102 N.E.3d 485 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018)
Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Good
882 N.E.2d 919 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 Ohio St. 3d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-state-bar-assn-v-good-ohio-2007.