Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 112 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2007-Ohio-139.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WASHINGTON. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 
 112 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2007-Ohio-139.] 
(No. 2005-2356 — Submitted January 2, 2007 — Decided  
January 4, 2007.) 
ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 
application for reinstatement by respondent, David S. Washington, Attorney 
Registration No. 0055406, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio. 
{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of May 31, 2006, 
wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a 
period of two years with eighteen months stayed on conditions, finds that 
respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of 
Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A).  Therefore, 
{¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that the remaining eighteen months of the 
suspension are stayed and respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the 
state of Ohio.  It is further ordered that on or before thirty days from the date of 
this order, relator shall file the name of an attorney who will monitor respondent 
during the stayed portion of his suspension.  At the end of the stayed suspension 
period, relator shall file a report with this court indicating whether respondent has 
complied with the monitoring.  It is further ordered that respondent shall comply 
with his Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract through October 2008 and 
that respondent commit no further misconduct during the stayed suspension 
period.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of this order, the stay may be 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
revoked, and respondent may be ordered to serve the remaining eighteen months 
of his suspension. 
{¶ 4} 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. 
{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-2423, 847 N.E.2d 435. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
______________________