Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. YAJKO.
              [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko, 

.]
    (No. 96-524—Submitted August 22, 2000—Decided September 15, 2000.)
                          ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of a
petition for reinstatement by respondent, Mark A. Yajko. 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 of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed its Amended Final Report in
this court on June 22, 2000, recommending that Mark A. Yajko be reinstated to the
practice of law in the state of Ohio. No objections to said Final Report were filed.
        {¶ 2} The court now considers its order of February 5, 1997, indefinitely
suspending respondent, Mark A. Yajko, from the practice of law pursuant to former
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(2). On consideration thereof, and the Amended Final Report
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline,
        {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by the court that the respondent, Mark A. Yajko,
Attorney 

 last known address in East Liverpool, Ohio,
be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.
        {¶ 4} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondent be taxed
the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $375.17, less the deposit of $500,
for a total balance due to respondent of $124.83.
        {¶ 5} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within
ninety days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that
have been awarded against the 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
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against the
respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that
amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such award.
       {¶ 6} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue
certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that
publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent
bear the costs of publication.
       {¶ 7} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko (1997), 

, 

.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                 __________________




                                         2