Case Name: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2001-02-15
Citations: 91 Ohio St. 3d 1450
Docket Number: 98-721
Parties: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent, would deny the applications, and would not permit the applicant to reapply before September 15, 2001.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 91
Pages: 1450–1450

Head Matter:
98-721.
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach.

Opinion:
On September 23, 1998, this court suspended respondent, P. Michael Muhlbach, a.k.a. Peter Michael Muhlbach, for six months with the six-month suspension stayed, during which time respondent was placed on probation on condition that no further disciplinary complaints were certified against him during the probationary period. On September 19, 2000, respondent filed an application for termination of probation, and on October 25, 2000, relator, Medina County Bar Association, filed a brief. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent's application for termination of probation shall not be granted and respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent files written documentation with this court, and this court accepts such documentation, verifying that respondent has complied with Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), to wit, verification that since September 8, 1999, he has received credit for at least thirteen hours of continuing legal education, including at least three hours relating to professional conduct. It is further ordered, sua sponte, that respondent's probation shall not be terminated until respondent files documentation verifying his compliance with Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G) and this court enters an order terminating his probation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration Office.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent, would deny the applications, and would not permit the applicant to reapply before September 15, 2001.