Opinion
No. 92-1486
Submitted September 15, 1992 —
Decided December 9, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department.
Respondent, Thomas C. Nicotera, is an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio. Since February 5, 1991, he has held inactive status.
On June 15, 1992, Nicotera was censured by the Third Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. In re Nicotera (1992), 184 A.D.2d 913, 585 N.Y.S.2d 122. Nicotera's censure stemmed from his neglect of a divorce action entrusted to him; his failure to cooperate with the resulting disciplinary investigation; and his failure to reimburse the investigating authority for certain costs arising from the disciplinary proceedings, despite both a court order and his own agreement to do so. Nicotera admitted most of the allegations against him.
On July 27, 1992, the Disciplinary Counsel filed with this court a certified copy of the New York court's memorandum and order censuring Nicotera, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1). On July 28, 1992, we ordered Nicotera to show cause within twenty days why we should not impose identical or comparable discipline in this state. Nicotera did not respond.
When an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio is disciplined by another jurisdiction, Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) requires this court to "impose the identical or comparable discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction * * *," unless the attorney proves by clear and convincing evidence that such discipline would be unwarranted. Nicotera has not done so. Moreover, his inactive status in Ohio does not preclude discipline. Accordingly, Thomas C. Nicotera is publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.