Disciplinary Counsel v. Oglesby

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Oglesby, 131 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2012-Ohio-424.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. OGLESBY.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Oglesby,

131 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2012-Ohio-424.]

(No. 2000-1100—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided January 26, 2012.)

ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT.

__________________

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on

May 9, 2011, of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, Geoffrey Lynn

Oglesby, attorney registration number 0023949. In accordance with Gov.Bar. R.

V(10)(F), respondent's petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The board filed its final report in

this court on December 5, 2011, recommending that respondent be reinstated to

the practice of law in Ohio subject to his serving a one-year probationary period.

No objections to the final report were filed.

{¶ 2} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that the

petition for reinstatement of respondent is granted and that respondent, Geoffrey

Lynn Oglesby, last known address in Berlin Heights, Ohio, is reinstated to the

practice of law in Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent shall serve a one-

year probationary period monitored by relator.

{¶ 3} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this

order relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who

will serve as respondent's monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is

further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period, relator shall

file with the clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the

probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 4} It is further ordered by the court that respondent be taxed the costs

of these proceedings in the amount of $1,991.77, less the deposit of $500, for a

total balance due of $1,491.77 payable, by cashier’s check or money order, by

respondent on or before 90 days from the date of this order. If costs are not paid

on or before 90 days from the date of this order, interest at the rate of 10 percent

per annum will accrue until costs are paid in full. It is further ordered that if costs

are not paid in full on or before 90 days from the date of this order, the matter

may be referred to the attorney general for collection and respondent may be

found in contempt and suspended until all costs and accrued interest are paid in

full.

{¶ 5} It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court, that within 90 days of

the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been

awarded against respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R.

VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of

this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against respondent

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the

Clients' Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period,

respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R.

V(9). It is further ordered that respondent's probation shall not be terminated until

(1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance

with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders

issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government

of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating

that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court

orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 7} It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this

court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of

2

January Term, 2012

Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form,

number, and timeliness of filings. All case documents are subject to Sup.R. 44

through 47, which govern access to court records.

{¶ 8} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Oglesby, 90 Ohio

St.3d 455, 739 N.E.2d 346 (2000).

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

______________________

3