Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith - 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

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith, 94 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2002-Ohio-1235.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GRIFFITH.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1243.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Reciprocal discipline from Arizona -- Public
reprimand -- Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4).
(No. 01-1878 -- Submitted and decided February 22, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, NO. SB-00-0038-D.
__________________

This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance
with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).

On October 22, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a
certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered May 5, 2000,
in In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Gregg H. Griffith, in
case No. SB-00-00380-D, censuring respondent, Gregg H. Griffith, a.k.a. Gregg
Holly Griffith. On November 6, 2001, this court ordered respondent to show
cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state.
Respondent filed no response to the show cause order. This cause was considered
by the court and on consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Gregg H. Griffith, a.k.a. Gregg Holly
Griffith, Attorney Registration No. 0043325, last known business address in
Phoenix, Arizona, be publicly reprimanded.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED,
sua sponte, by the court, that within ninety
days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have
been awarded against the respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after
the date of this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that
amount to the Clients' Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such
award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with
this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form,
number, and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed
made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by
certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney
Registration Office.

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, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
2