Disciplinary Counsel v. Edelman

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Edelman, 

, 

.]




                 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EDELMAN.
  [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Edelman, 

, 2002-Ohio-
                                          6773.]
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Reciprocal discipline from Arizona — Thirtyday suspension, stayed, with two-year probation — Gov.Bar R.
        V(11)(F)(4).
(No. 2002-1739 — Submitted December 2, 2002 — Decided December 3, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Arizona, No. SB-02-0095-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 9, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this
court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered August
7, 2002, in In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Sanford J.
Edelman, case No. SB-02-0095-D, suspending respondent, Sanford J. Edelman,
a.k.a. Sanford Joseph Edelman, for 30 days, effective 30 days from August 7,
2002, with a two-year probationary period upon reinstatement on conditions. On
October 11, 2002, 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, Sanford J. Edelman, a.k.a. Sanford Joseph
Edelman, Attorney 

 last known business address in
Tucson, Arizona, be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of
thirty days, with the suspension stayed, and placed on probation for a period of
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




two years and that he will not be permitted to apply for termination of probation
in Ohio until such time as his probation is terminated in the state of Arizona.
         {¶4}   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within
90 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 respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse
that amount to the Clients’ Security Fund within 90 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