Disciplinary Counsel v. Glover - 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. Barrett, 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. Glover.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Glover (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Reciprocal discipline after being disbarred in the
District of Columbia and Pennsylvania for conviction of
conspiracy to defraud the United States and bribery of a
public official.
(No. 94-520 -- Submitted April 25, 1994 -- Decided August
24, 1994.)
On Notification of Disciplinary Counsel.
By letter dated March 7, 1994, relator, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, notified the court that respondent
Valerie Jamella Glover, a.k.a. Valerie Jamella Glover-Tonwe of
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037197, had been
disbarred on consent by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on
February 4, 1992, after having submitted her affidavit of
resignation to that court, and had been disbarred effective
April 8, 1992 by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
after having been convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United
States in violation of Section 371, Title 18, U.S. Code, and of
bribery of a public official in violation of Sections 210 and
201(b)(1)(A), Title 18, U.S. Code -- both crimes involving
moral turpitude. In re Glover-Tonwe (D.C.App. 1993), 626 A.2d
1387. On April 16, 1992, we indefinitely suspended respondent
from the practice of law pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(9) for
conviction of a felony.
On March 15, 1994, we issued respondent an order, pursuant
to Gov. Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), to show cause why identical or
comparable discipline to that imposed by other jurisdictions
would be unwarranted. On April 4, 1994, respondent responded
to the show-cause order, stating that she had been convicted of
the aforestated crimes and sentenced to thirty-seven months in
prison, "[a]lthough it was determined that respondent committed
these crimes while suffering from a mental illness * * * ."
Respondent offered no substantiation of her claim of mental
illness. Respondent also stated that disbarment on consent in
Pennsylvania and disbarment for moral turpitude in the District

of Columbia would permit reinstatement after five years. She
argued, therefore, that comparable discipline in this state
should include the possibility of reinstatement.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Valerie J. Glover, pro se.

Per Curiam. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law in this state. She may not apply for
reinstatement until she submits proof of reinstatement in
Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.