Opinion

Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino

  • 87 Ohio St. 3d 466
  • 2000 Ohio 480
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 4, 2000
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 65.6%

The opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 466.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RUBINO.

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rubino, 2000-Ohio-480.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Failure to cooperate in

discipline investigation.

(No. 99-1560—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided January 5, 2000.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-31.

__________________

{¶ 1} On June 8, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a

complaint charging respondent, Corey J. Rubino of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0058480, with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules and with

failure to cooperate in the investigation it conducted with respect to the violations.

{¶ 2} After respondent answered, the matter was submitted to a panel of the

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court

(“board”) on stipulations in which the relator withdrew the charges in the complaint

and the respondent agreed that he had not fully cooperated in the attempted

investigation of the complaint by the relator.

{¶ 3} Based upon the stipulations, the panel concluded that respondent

violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify

in an investigation or hearing). The panel recommended that respondent receive a

public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and

recommendation of the panel.

__________________

Mary Ann Rini, Joan M. Litzow and John D. Sutula, for relator.

Carl C. Monastra, for respondent.

__________________

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam.

{¶ 4} We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board.

An attorney is required to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation even when

the subject of the investigation is himself. Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82

Ohio St.3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083, 1084. Respondent is hereby publicly

reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.