From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 17, 2003
786 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 2003)

Opinion

No. 2002-0294.

Submitted March 14, 2003.

Decided March 17, 2003.

On Application for Reinstatement.


{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Michael Dzienny, a.k.a. Michael Andrew Dzienny, Attorney Registration No. 0037618, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of July 31, 2002, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of 18 months with one year suspended on condition, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that Michael Dzienny, a.k.a. Michael Andrew Dzienny, be and hereby is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

{¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

{¶ 5} For earlier cases, see Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny, 96 Ohio St.3d 144, 2002-Ohio-3611, 772 N.E.2d 627, and Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E.2d 499.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Lundberg Stratton and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 17, 2003
786 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 2003)
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

Case Details

Full title:Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Dzienny

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 17, 2003

Citations

786 N.E.2d 895 (Ohio 2003)
786 N.E.2d 895