Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GRIFFITH.
            [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Reciprocal discipline from Arizona—Public
        reprimand—Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4).
             (No. 01-1878—Submitted and decided February 22, 2002.)
 ON CERTIFIED ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA, NO. SB-00-0038-D.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in
accordance with the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F).
        {¶ 2} On October 22, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this
court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered May 5,
2000, in In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Gregg H. Griffith,
in case No. SB-00-00380-D, censuring respondent, Gregg H. Griffith, a.k.a. Gregg
Holly Griffith. On November 6, 2001, this court ordered respondent to show cause
why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state.
Respondent filed no response to the show cause order. This cause was considered
by the court and on consideration thereof,
        {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Gregg H. Griffith, a.k.a. Gregg Holly Griffith,
Attorney 

 last known business address in Phoenix,
Arizona, be publicly reprimanded.
        {¶ 4} 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
the date of this order, the Clients’ Security Fund awards any amount against the
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that
amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within ninety days of the notice of such award.
       {¶ 5} 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 Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form,
number, and timeliness of filings.
       {¶ 6} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be
deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case,
by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney
Registration Office.
       {¶ 7} 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.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                                 __________________




                                          2