disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Lapine, Disciplinary Counsel v.128 Ohio St.3d 87, 2010-Ohio-6151. Decided 12/21/2010.Reciprocal Discipline on Certified Order of the US SEC, No. 3-13926Case Summaries- 169―This case concerns whether a suspension order entered by the United State Securities and ExchangeCommission (―SEC‖), in which an attorney licensed in Ohio has voluntarily agreed not to practice beforethe SEC for five years and which reflects neither an admission of wrongdoing by the attorney nor anaffirmative finding professional misconduct by the SEC, is a disciplinary order by another jurisdictionthat requires this court to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).‖ The court notedthat it had not before addressed the question of whether the SEC is a ―jurisdiction for purposes of Gov.BarR. V(11)(F), but, the court has recognized that a federal agency may be a considered a jurisdiction forpurposes of the rule. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Rayve, 121 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2009-Ohio-3810;Disciplinary Counsel v. Knuth, 119 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2008-Ohio-3810; and Disciplinary Counsel v.Colitz, 99 Ohio St.3d 1216, 2003-Ohio-3308 in which the court imposed reciprocal discipline forsuspensions from practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The courtdistinguished the considerations involved as to the USPTO cases from considerations raised herein as tothe SEC cases. The court held that ―the SEC is not a ‗jurisdiction‘ for purposes of reciprocal discipline, itdid not issue a disciplinary order within the meaning of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F), and reciprocal disciplineis not available in this case. Accordingly, the appropriate disposition is to dismiss this matter withoutimposing reciprocal discipline.‖Rules Violated: NONEAggravation: NONEMitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Dismissal