Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin

Citation: 2000-Ohio-251

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin, 87 Ohio St.3d 1246, 2000-Ohio-251.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MALKIN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 1246.] 
(No. 93-1739 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided January 4, 2000.) 
ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 
 
This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on November 19, 
1998, of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, Jack Steven Malkin, Attorney 
Registration No. 0034018.  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 filed its final report in this court on October 15, 1999, 
recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law.  No objections to said 
final report were filed.  Upon consideration thereof, 
 
IT IS ORDERED by this court that the petition for reinstatement of respondent be, 
and hereby is, granted, and that respondent, Jack Steven Malkin, last known business 
address in Cleveland, Ohio, be and hereby is reinstated to the practice of law. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondent be taxed the costs of 
these proceedings in the amount of $2,156.26, less the deposit of $500, for a total balance 
due of $1,656.26, which costs shall be payable to this court, by certified check or money 
order, on or before ninety days from the date of this 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 accrue as of ninety days from the date 
of this order, on the balance of unpaid board costs and that the court may find respondent 
in contempt and suspend respondent until such time as costs, including all accrued 
interest, have been paid in full. 
 
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).  
 
 
2
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, 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 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 case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Malkin (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 482, 
628 N.E.2d 1356. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.