Disciplinary Counsel v. Anselmi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Anselmi, 106 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2005-Ohio-4099.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ANSELMI. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Anselmi, 106 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2005-Ohio-4099.] Attorneys at law Reciprocal discipline from the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Public reprimand Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2005-1005 Submitted July 8, 2005 Decided July 14, 2005.) ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, Case No. 03-161-GA. __________________ {¶ 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 June 6, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board entered June 23, 2004, in Grievance Administrator v. Kurt Anthony Anselmi, in Case No. 03-161-GA, reprimanding respondent. On June 15, 2005, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent filed a 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, Kurt Anthony Anselmi, Attorney Registration No. 0064192, last known business address in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, be publicly reprimanded. {¶ 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, SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 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 Section. {¶ 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., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. ______________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
