O FFICE OF D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . H INE , A
. K
. A
. R OHRER
. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hine (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 448.] Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Reciprocal discipline — Corresponding ex parte with trial judge regarding issues in a pending child-custody case although not an advocate for either party. (No. 97-1153 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided December 31, 1997.) O N C ERTIFIED O RDER of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. This cause is pending before this c ourt in accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F). On April 22, 1997, respondent, Katherine Hine, a.k.a. Katherine Campbell Rohrer, Attorney Registration No. 0052217, last known address in Columbus, Ohio, was publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for corresponding ex parte with a trial judge regarding issues in a pending childcustody case although she was not an advocate for either party. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assn. v. Hine (Okla.1997), 937 P.2d 996. Respondent was one of several signatories to a letter to the tr ial judge from a child advocacy organization known as “Stop Child Abuse Now” asserting facts not in evidence and urging that the judge take a particul ar course of action. On May 27, 1997, relator, Office of Di sciplinary Counsel, a dvised this court of the Oklahoma ruling, and on June 17, 1997, we issued an order to respondent to show cause within twenty days as to why comparable discipline in this state under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4) would not be warranted. On July 24, 1997, respondent filed a motion to stay these proceedings pending appeal or in the alternative to reconsider the imposition of reciprocal discipline because “the public reprimand issued by the Oklahoma Supreme Court wa s unwarranted and a perversion of the disciplinary rules.”2 __________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan , Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown , Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Frederick L. Oremus, for respondent.

__________________ Per Curiam

. Respondent moved to stay disciplinary proceedings in Ohio because she filed a Petition for Writ of Ce rtiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States asserting First Amendment rights. However, under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(3), the only ground for a stay of reciprocal discipline proceedings in Ohio is a showing that the sanction has been stayed in the disciplining state. Not only did respondent fail to present eviden ce that the disciplinary proceedings in Oklahoma have been stayed, but her petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 6, 1997. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to a stay of these proceedings. In the alternative, respondent sought a “reconsideration” of the imposition of reciprocal discipline on the ground that there was no credible evidence introduced in the Oklahoma proceedings that respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justi ce. To her motion respondent attached a copy of the letter to the judge which she and others signed on behalf of the organization, a newspaper article reporting remarks of another Oklahoma judge on the same topic, a portion of the transcript at respondent’s disciplinary hearing in Oklahoma, and a copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in her disciplinary case. The record before us indicates th at respondent was afforded a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tr ibunal in Oklahoma and respondent does not dispute that she was provided procedur al due process in that state. We3 therefore find that the facts which underlay the action of the Oklahoma court have been established. Under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4)(b), the burden is on respondent to show by clear and convincing evidence that “the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in Ohio.” Respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that her conduct, which warranted a sanction of pub lic reprimand in Oklahoma, would not warrant the same sanction in Ohio. Acco rdingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , F.E. S WEENEY , C OOK and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ.,

concur. R ESNICK and P FEIFER , JJ., dissent and would dismiss this cause.