Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Application of Coll

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 2017No. 2016-1243Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, J.

{¶ 32} Respectfully, I have a different view of this case. I concur in the judgment to disapprove the current application filed by Shamir Lee Coll, but contrary to the majority, I would permanently preclude this applicant from submitting an additional application for admission to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 33} This court has recognized that “the practice of law is an extraordinary privilege bestowed by this court upon one who meets the qualifications for admission and continues to maintain the standard of ethical conduct as prescribed by the rules of the court.” Shimko v.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. In re DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Shimko v. LobeOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. In re BagneOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. In re CorriganOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. In re Ireland-PhillipsOhio Supreme Court · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API