2005-Ohio-1834
Supreme Court of Ohio.
April 21, 2005.
MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS
ENTRY
This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2002-2003 reporting period.
On November 22, 2004, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(1), this court issued to the respondent an order to show cause why the recommended sanction should not be adopted by the court and an order so entered against the respondent. Respondent filed no objections to the commission’s recommendation and this cause was considered by the court.
On April 8, 2005, this court entered an order adopting the commission’s recommendation imposing a fee sanction and suspending respondent.
It has now come to the court’s attention that the respondent is deceased. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that the orders of November 22, 2004, and April 8, 2005, be, and the same are hereby, vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be dismissed.
ENTRY
This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (“commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 2002-2003 reporting period.
On April 8, 2005, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon the respondent, and suspended the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(7); respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio; respondent complies with this and all other orders of the court; and this court orders respondent reinstated.
On April 14, 2005, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2), finding that the respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and recommending that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. On April 14, 2005, the commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during his suspension by this court’s order of suspension. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Theodore A. Amata, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.