Court Opinion

ID: 9893200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 13:08:14.664592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:30.434044
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re Bridgeforth, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-3866.]

                                  IN RE BRIDGEFORTH.
        [Cite as In re Bridgeforth, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2023-Ohio-3866.]
    (No. CLE-2002-38388—September 29, 2023—Decided October 26, 2023.)
ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION.
                                ____________________
        {¶ 1} This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the
Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to former Gov.Bar R.
X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of
sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for
failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal
Education, for the 2000-2001 reporting period.
        {¶ 2} On April 10, 2003, this court adopted the recommendation of the
commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent
from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4).
The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of
law in Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set
forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7), complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the
Government of the Bar of Ohio, complied with the April 10, 2003 order and all
other orders of the court, and this court ordered respondent reinstated.
        {¶ 3} On September 29, 2023, the commission filed a recommendation
pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2), finding that respondent has paid all fees
assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full
compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and recommending that
respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified
that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

required during the suspension by this court’s order of suspension. Respondent has
satisfied all the requirements of this court’s order of suspension.
       {¶ 4} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the
recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Henry Clay
Bridgeforth, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.
       KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
                               _________________

                                          2