Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuller

Citation: 2007-Ohio-259

Docket Number: 20062218

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-01-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuller, 112 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2007-Ohio-259.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FULLER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fuller, 112 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2007-Ohio-259.] 
Attorneys at law – Reciprocal discipline from the Supreme Court of Florida  – 
Public reprimand – Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). 
(No. 2006-2218 – Submitted January 11, 2007 – Decided January 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Florida, No. SC05-2324 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} On November 30, 2006, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with 
this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Florida entered 
August 31, 2006, in The Florida Bar v. Lawrence Arthur Fuller, in Case No. 
SC05-2324, in which respondent was admonished.  On December 8, 2006, 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, 
{¶ 2} It is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Lawrence Arthur Fuller, Attorney Registration No. 
0075793, last known business address in North Miami, Florida, be publicly 
reprimanded. 
{¶ 3} It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that within 90 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 90 days of the notice of such award. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} 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. 
{¶ 5} 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 
Section. 
{¶ 6} 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., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
______________________