Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 2011No. 2010-1888PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph Harold Smith of Avon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0041412, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989. On April 24, 2009, we suspended respondent’s license to practice on an interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon receiving notice that he had been convicted of a felony. See In re Smith, 121 Ohio St.3d 1456, 2009-Ohio-1891, 905 N.E.2d 195.

{¶ 2} In April 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with four violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from the conduct that resulted in his federal…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. ButtacavoliOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. BroerenOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. KelloggOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Dayton Bar Ass'n v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Dayton Bar Assn. v. BrunnerOhio Supreme Court · 2001

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Counsel v. JacobsOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. LandOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. WagnerOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. ToohigOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Columbus Bar Assn. v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2011

14 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