Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 2000No. 99-1399PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

When an attorney has been disciplined in another state, Gov. Bar R. V(11)(F)(4)(a)(ii) requires us to impose an identical or comparable discipline unless the disciplined attorney shows by clear and convincing evidence that “the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Hine (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 448, 449, 687 N.E.2d 420, 421. Respondent has not done so. “New Jersey disbarment is final.” In the Matter of Valentin (1997), 147 N.J. 499, 505, 688 A.2d 602, 605. Therefore, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matter of ValentinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. HineOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. MeenenOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. WebsterOhio Supreme Court · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API