Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bica

  • 62 Ohio St. 3d 1205
  • 579 N.E.2d 712
  • 1991 Ohio LEXIS 3102
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Oct 10, 1991
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

The opinion

On Petition for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, Carole M. Bica. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(29), respondent’s petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed its Final Report in this court on August 30, 1991, recommending that the petition for reinstatement of Carole M. Bica be granted on conditions. No objections to said Final Report were filed.

The court coming now to consider its order of March 16, 1988, indefinitely suspending respondent, Carole M. Bica, from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7)(b), finds that respondent has complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(25) through (28). On consideration thereof and the Final Report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the petition for reinstatement of Carole M. Bica, Attorney Registration Number 0022186, be, and hereby is, granted on conditions, and that Carole M. Bica is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio with the following conditions: (1) that Disciplinary Counsel appoint a monitoring attorney from respondent’s county and that the monitoring attorney monitor respondent’s practice and report every three months in writing to Disciplinary Counsel as to respondent’s progress; and (2) that the monitoring program continue for an indefinite period until this court receives a joint certification from her attending physician and Disciplinary Counsel, certifying that said program is no longer necessary.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondent be taxed the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $463.40, and that this amount be deducted from the deposit previously filed by respondent in this cause.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent comply with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. VI.

For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Bica (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 264 , 520 N.E.2d 221 .

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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.