Case ID: ohio-st-3d_91/html/1271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Schlei.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Schlei (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1271.]
    (No. 00-2312
    Submitted and decided May 8, 2001.)
   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 December 22, 2000, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of California entered August 15, 2000, in In re Norbert Anthony Schlei in case No. S088882, suspending respondent, Norbert Anthony Schlei, for one year, staying the suspension, and placing him on probation for one year subject to the conditions of probation. On January 19, 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, Norbert Anthony Schlei, Attorney Registration No. 0052584, last known address in Cincinnati, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one year, that the suspension be stayed, and that he be placed on probation for a period of one year.

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 respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(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 that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for termination of probation set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio; (2) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio; (3) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court; (4) respondent files evidence with this court demonstrating that he has been reinstated to the practice of law in California and is no longer on probation in California; and (5) this court orders the probation terminated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk and the Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications.

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.