Dayton Bar Assn. v. Brunner - 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 Dayton Bar Assn. v. Brunner, 94 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2002-Ohio-1241.]

DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRUNNER.
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Brunner (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1242.]
(No. 00-1564 Submitted and decided February 22, 2002.)
ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT.
__________________

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of a petition
for reinstatement by respondent, L. Keith Brunner, a.k.a. Lowell Keith Brunner.
In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(10)(F), respondent's petition for reinstatement
was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed its Final Report in
this court on December 14, 2001, recommending that L. Keith Brunner, a.k.a.
Lowell Keith Brunner, be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. No
objections to said Final Report were filed.

The court now considers its order of May 2, 2001, in which it indefinitely
suspended respondent with credit for time served since December 18, 1996. On
consideration thereof, and the Final Report of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the respondent, L. Keith Brunner, a.k.a.
Lowell Keith Brunner, Attorney Registration No. 0006567, last known address in
Springboro, Ohio, be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondent be taxed the
costs of these proceedings in the amount of $975.62, less the deposit of $500, for
a total balance due of $475.62, which costs shall be payable to this court on or
before ninety days from the date of this order, by certified check or money order.
It is further ordered that if these costs are not paid in full on or before ninety days
from the date of this order, interest at the rate of ten percent per annum shall

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
accrue as of ninety days from the date of this order, on the balance of unpaid
board costs. It is further ordered that if costs are not paid in full on or before
ninety days from the date of this order, respondent may be found in contempt and
may be suspended until costs, including any accrued interest, are paid in full.

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.

For earlier cases, see In re Brunner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1499, 673
N.E.2d 597; and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Brunner (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 398, 746
N.E.2d 596.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
2