Case Name: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-03-22
Citations: 88 Ohio St. 3d 268
Docket Number: No. 99-1399
Parties: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 88
Pages: 268–268

Head Matter:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meenen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 268.]
(No. 99-1399
Submitted December 15, 1999
Decided March 22, 2000.)
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Opinion:
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.