Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 109 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2006-Ohio-2577.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL. v. FREEMAN. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 109 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2006-Ohio-2577.] (No. 2005-0365 Submitted April 28, 2006 Decided May 5, 2006.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. __________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Thomas Herbert Freeman, Attorney Registration No. 0007852, last known business address in Norwalk, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of October 12, 2005, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore, {¶ 3} IT IS ORDERED by this court that respondent be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. {¶ 4} 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. {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 106 Ohio St.3d 334, 2005-Ohio-5142, 835 N.E.2d 26. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. ______________________ 1

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.