Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin - 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. Martin.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin (1995), Ohio
St.3d .]
(No. 94-492 -- Submitted and decided January 13, 1995.)
On Application for Reinstatement.
On June 22, 1994 this court suspended respondent, Linda
Sue Martin, Attorney Registration No. 0025597, last known
address in Youngstown, Ohio, for one year, with the last six
months of the suspension to be stayed and respondent to be
placed on a three-year probationary period, pursuant to Gov.Bar
R. V(6)(B). On December 22, 1994, respondent filed an
application for reinstatement.
The court coming now to consider its order of June 22,
1994, finds that respondent has substantially complied with
that order. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the last six months of respondent's
one-year suspension be stayed, and that she be placed on a
three-year probationary period, consistent with the opinion
rendered by the court in Disciplinary Counsel v. Martin (1994),
69 Ohio St.3d 468, 633 N.E.2d 112.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 13, 1995,
relator, Disciplinary Counsel, file with the Clerk of this
court the name of the attorney who will monitor respondent
during the probationary period. It is further ordered that at
the end of the probationary period, relator file with the Clerk
of this court a report indicating whether respondent complied
with the terms of her probation during this period.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon successful completion of
the probationary period, respondent may apply for termination
of probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and that the
probation shall not be terminated until respondent complies
with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), and this court orders respondent's
probation terminated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk
of this court, relator, and the monitoring attorney advised of
any change of address where respondent may receive
communications.
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.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.