Disciplinary Counsel v. Jarabek

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether respondent should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court's prior suspension order and failing to appear in response to the show-cause order.
2. Whether the stay of the second year of respondent's suspension should be revoked and the full two-year suspension imposed as an actual suspension.

Holdings

1. Respondent was held in contempt for failing to comply with the court's February 25, 2009 suspension order and for failing to appear as ordered.
2. The stay of the second year of respondent's suspension was revoked, and respondent was ordered to serve the entire two-year suspension as a period of actual suspension.
3. Respondent must file a petition for reinstatement under Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B) and may not petition for reinstatement until he complies with the applicable bar rules and court orders and the court orders his reinstatement.

Factual background

Jarabek was previously suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on conditions involving participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, random drug testing, and restrictions on law-clerk or paralegal work. Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion alleging that he had failed to comply with the suspension order. Jarabek failed to appear as ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

Procedural history

On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended Jarabek for two years, stayed the second year subject to specified conditions. After Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Jarabek failed to comply with the order, the court ordered him to appear on February 16, 2010. Jarabek did not appear, and the court found him in contempt, revoked the stay, and ordered him to serve the entire two-year suspension as an actual suspension.