Disciplinary Counsel v. Kearns - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kearns.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Kearns (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Reciprocal discipline for
violations of disciplinary rules in Colorado --
Restitution required.
(No. 92-2501 -- Submitted February 2, 1993 -- Decided
April 21, 1993.)
On Certified Order of the Supreme Court of Colorado, No.
92SA119.
Respondent, Gregory Allen Kearns, Attorney Registration
No. 0048706, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, was
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on May 5, 1973 and to
the practice of law in Colorado on June 4, 1976. On October
13, 1992, the Supreme Court of Colorado found that he had
committed violations of a disciplinary rule proscribing acts of
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that these
violations caused Donald B. Wingerter, Sr., to lose $100,000 of
the $136,000 in his retirement trust account. The court also
determined that respondent had failed to reply timely to a
request for investigation of his misconduct. Respondent was
suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for a year and a
day and, among other conditions, ordered to pay restitution to
Wingerter before applying for reinstatement.
Pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F) (former Gov.Bar R. V[44]), relator, Office
of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a certified copy of the order of
the Supreme Court of Colorado with the Clerk of this court.
Conventional methods to serve respondent with our order to show
cause why we should not impose identical or comparable
discipline were unsuccessful, apparently because he no longer
resides at his registered address. Accordingly, respondent was
served with the show cause order pursuant to Gov.Bar R.
V(11)(B), which permits the Clerk of the Supreme Court to
receive service of any notice provided by Gov.Bar R. V where an
attorney admitted to the Ohio Bar becomes a nonresident or
conceals his or her whereabouts. Respondent has not responded
to the show cause order.

J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Per Curiam. Respondent has failed to show why he should
not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Colorado. Accordingly, we hereby suspend
respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the duration of
his Colorado suspension. However, before respondent will be
reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio, He must present
evidence that he has made the restitution ordered by the
Colorado Supreme Court, as required by Gov.Bar R. V(10)(E)(1).
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.