Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen, 88 Ohio St.3d 268, 2000-Ohio-333.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEENEN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 268.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Reciprocal 
discipline. 
(No. 99-1399 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided March 22, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, No. D-22-98. 
 
This case is pending before the court in accordance with the reciprocal 
discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F). 
 
On November 4, 1998, respondent, Robert D. Meenen, last known address 
in Willard, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0050218, was disbarred from the 
practice of law in New Jersey.  A certified notice of the disbarment issued by the 
Supreme Court of New Jersey was received by the relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, which then advised the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio of the 
disbarment on July 27, 1999. 
 
On August 9, 1999, we issued an Order to Show Cause to respondent 
requiring that within twenty days he notify this court of the reasons why the 
imposition of comparable or identical discipline in Ohio under Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(F)(4) would be unwarranted.  The Clerk attempted service of the order upon 
the respondent by certified mail on August 9, 1999, at his last known address, “c/o 
 
 
2
Mr. Garry Buurma, Route # 2, Willard, Ohio.”  Linda Buurma received and signed 
for the order.  Respondent failed to file a responsive pleading. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  When an attorney has been disciplined in another state, Gov. 
Bar R. V(11)(F)(4)(a)(ii) requires us to impose an identical or comparable 
discipline unless the disciplined attorney shows by clear and convincing evidence 
that “the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in 
Ohio.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hine (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 448, 449, 687 N.E.2d 
420, 421.  Respondent has not done so.  “New Jersey disbarment is final.”  In the 
Matter of Valentin (1997), 147 N.J. 499, 505, 688 A.2d 602, 605.  Therefore, 
respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.