Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a five-year SEC suspension order, entered without an admission or finding of professional misconduct, was not a disciplinary order from another jurisdiction under Ohio's reciprocal-discipline rule. The court dismissed the disciplinary matter without imposing reciprocal discipline.
Holdings
- The SEC is not a jurisdiction for purposes of imposing reciprocal discipline under Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F) because it does not admit or supervise attorneys or specifically regulate the practice of law.
- The SEC suspension order was not a disciplinary order within the meaning of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1) because it did not result from a disciplinary proceeding and established no misconduct by admission or affirmative finding.
Questions Presented
- Whether the SEC is a jurisdiction within the meaning of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F) for purposes of reciprocal attorney discipline.
- Whether the SEC suspension order was a disciplinary order in another jurisdiction within the meaning of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1).
- Whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed on Lapine in Ohio.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (9)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rayve, 121 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2009-Ohio-844, 901 N.E.2d 1292(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Knuth, 119 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2008-Ohio-3810, 891 N.E.2d 343(distinguished)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Colitz, 99 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2003-Ohio-3308, 790 N.E.2d 788(distinguished)
- Florida Bar v. Tepps, 601 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1992)(followed)
- Stanley v. Ligon, 374 Ark. 6, 285 S.W.3d 649 (2008)(followed by analogy)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Lapine, 126 Ohio St.3d 1588, 2010-Ohio-4639, 934 N.E.2d 358(procedural history)
- In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550-551 (1968)(cited)
- Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353 U.S. 252, 262 (1957)(cited)
- People v. Bode, 119 P.3d 1098 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2005)(cited)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…