From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 7, 1996
670 N.E.2d 1358 (Ohio 1996)

Opinion

No. 95-378

Submitted and decided October 7, 1996.

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT.


This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent James C. King, a.k.a. James Coulter King, Attorney Registration No. 0000774, last known address in Lima, Ohio.

The court coming now to consider its order of February 28, 1996, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that James C. King, a.k.a. James Coulter King, be and hereby is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.

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.

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. King (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 612, 660 N.E.2d 1160.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 7, 1996
670 N.E.2d 1358 (Ohio 1996)
Case details for

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KING

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 7, 1996

Citations

670 N.E.2d 1358 (Ohio 1996)
77 Ohio St. 3d 1202

Citing Cases

Disciplinary Counsel v. King

We found that respondent had neglected to refile a civil case and that he had repeatedly lied to his client…