Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter, 

, 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PORTER.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Porter, 

, 

.]
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Reciprocal discipline from the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Ohio — Public reprimand —
        Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4).
   (No. 2002-1769 — Submitted November 27, 2002 — Decided December 2,
                                           2002.)
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the United States District Court for the Northern District
                                  of Ohio, No. 2002-22.
                                  __________________
        {¶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 15, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this
court a certified copy of an order of the United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio, entered March 13, 2002, in In the Matter of Attorney
Disciplinary Proceedings—Randall L. Porter, case No. 2002-22, publicly
reprimanding respondent, Randall Lee Porter. On October 21, 2002, this court
ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should
not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed a notice of intent not to file
objections and this cause was considered by the court.                Upon consideration
thereof,
        {¶3}     IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this court that pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Randall Lee Porter, Attorney 

 last known business address in Columbus, Ohio, be publicly
reprimanded.
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




         {¶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