From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. Acker

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 5, 1992
583 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1490

Submitted October 9, 1991 —

Decided February 5, 1992.

ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. BAR 90-15.

Respondent, Thomas R. Acker, was admitted to practice law in the state of Ohio in 1983. By order of December 11, 1990, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine accepted respondent's resignation from the Bar of the state of Maine, pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 7( l)(1) and (2). This rule permits acceptance of an attorney's resignation when the attorney is under disciplinary investigation. At the time he submitted his resignation, respondent was being investigated by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar for conduct unworthy of an attorney. The allegations against respondent included failing to avoid interests adverse to a client; failing to disclose such interests prior to accepting employment; handling legal matters without adequate preparation; neglecting legal matters entrusted to him; engaging in illegal conduct; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine further ordered that respondent may not petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in the state of Maine until the expiration of three years from the date of its order.

Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(44), the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio filed a certified copy of an order from the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio on July 24, 1991. On August 12, 1991, we ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed upon him. Respondent did not reply to the show cause order.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, for relator.


Respondent's resignation was disciplinary in nature. We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from December 11, 1990, until he is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Maine. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Acker

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 5, 1992
583 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio 1992)
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. Acker

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ACKER

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 5, 1992

Citations

583 N.E.2d 1305 (Ohio 1992)
583 N.E.2d 1305

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Ngobeni

See Matter of Tuttle, 20 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 521 (2004) (treating resignation of attorney from…