Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Good

Citation: 2007-Ohio-3602

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Good, 114 Ohio St.3d 204, 2007-Ohio-3602.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. GOOD. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Good, 114 Ohio St.3d 204, 2007-Ohio-3602.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Unauthorized practice of law in another 
jurisdiction — Suspension for six months. 
(No. 2007-0310 — Submitted March 14, 2007 — Decided July 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-088. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, John Derek Good of Bradenton, 
Florida, Attorney Registration No. 0058514, to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1992.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that we now suspend respondent’s license to practice law for six months based on 
findings that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida and 
thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) and 3-101(B) (prohibiting the practice of law in 
violation of the professional regulations of that jurisdiction).  On review, we adopt 
the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a six-month suspension is 
appropriate for respondent’s violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged respondent with the 
cited misconduct, and the parties thereafter entered into a consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.  A panel of the board recommended acceptance of the agreement, in 
which the parties stipulated to the violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 3-101(B) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
proposed the six-month suspension.  The board also recommends acceptance of 
the agreement. 
{¶ 3} The board found the disciplinary violations based on a May 24, 
2006 ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida in Case No. SC04-418 that 
respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida.  See 
Florida 
Bar 
v. 
Good 
(2006), 
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/ 
disposition/2006/5/04-418.pdf (full text of order), 934 So.2d 450 (table entry).  
According to the consent-to-discipline agreement, respondent committed six 
incidents of unauthorized practice, and the Florida Supreme Court issued an 
injunction and imposed a $1,000 monetary penalty for each incident, ordering 
respondent to pay $6,000. 
{¶ 4} We accept the consent-to-discipline agreement.  Respondent is 
therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel; and John J. Mueller, L.L.C., and John J. 
Mueller, for relator. 
 
John Derek Good, pro se. 
______________________