Court Opinion

ID: 4288360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-26 13:56:13.476251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:22.612753
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-2468.]

                          DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SMITH.
 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-2468.]
       (No. 2017-0487—Submitted June 22, 2018—Decided June 26, 2018.)
                        ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT.
                                ____________________
        {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an
application for reinstatement by respondent, Samuel Ray Smith II, Attorney
Registration No. 0076242, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio.
        {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of December 6, 2017,
wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent
from the practice of law for a period of 18 months, with the final 12 months
stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct, finds that
respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of
Gov.Bar R. V(24).
        {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to
the practice of law in the state of Ohio.
        {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies
of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2).
        {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 152 Ohio St.3d
131, 2017-Ohio-8821, 93 N.E.3d 955.
        O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE,
and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.
                             ________________________