Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio found Stephen Edwin Weithman in contempt for failing to pay board costs previously ordered by the court. It revoked the stay of his two-year suspension from the practice of law and imposed conditions for reinstatement, including payment of costs, continuing legal education, and compliance with professional obligations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the court's prior order requiring payment of board costs.
- Whether the stay of respondent's previously imposed suspension should be revoked because of that noncompliance.
- What conditions should govern respondent's suspension and any future reinstatement.
Holdings
- Respondent was properly found in contempt for failing to comply with the Supreme Court of Ohio's prior order requiring payment of board costs.
- The stay of respondent's two-year suspension was revoked because respondent failed to comply with the court's prior order.
- Respondent remained suspended from practicing law until he paid all costs and accrued interest, applied for and was granted reinstatement, and satisfied the specified professional, continuing-legal-education, notification, filing, and reinstatement requirements.
Key quotations
“Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that respondent, Stephen Edwin Weithman, Attorney Registration No. 0027094, last known address in Delaware, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with the court’s February 12, 2015 order.” (¶ 2)
“It is further ordered that the previously imposed stay of the two-year suspension is revoked and that respondent is suspended from the practice of law until respondent pays all costs and accrued interest in full, has applied for reinstatement, and has been granted reinstatement by this court.” (¶ 3)
Factual background
The Supreme Court of Ohio had previously suspended Stephen Edwin Weithman for two years, stayed the suspension on conditions, and ordered him to pay board costs of $1,617.65. Weithman did not pay the costs and did not respond to the court's subsequent order to show cause.
Procedural history
On February 12, 2015, the court suspended Stephen Edwin Weithman from practicing law for two years, stayed the suspension on conditions, and ordered him to pay $1,617.65 in board costs. After Weithman failed to pay, the court issued an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and why the stay should not be revoked. Weithman filed no response, and the court held him in contempt, revoked the stay, and imposed an active suspension subject to reinstatement conditions.