Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko, 124 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2009-Ohio-6879.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHIMKO. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Shimko, 124 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2009-Ohio-6879.] Attorneys at law Reciprocal discipline from the Supreme Court of Arizona Public reprimand Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2009-1957 Submitted December 8, 2009 Decided December 15, 2009.) ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Arizona, No. SB-09-0061-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 26, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona entered June 23, 2009, in In the Matter of Timothy A. Shimko, in case No. SB-09-0061-D, publicly censuring respondent. On November 3, 2009, 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, Timothy Andrew Shimko, Attorney Registration No. 0006736, last known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, 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 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 respondent SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), 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 Office of Attorney Services. {¶ 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., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. _______________________ 2 STRATTON, O CONNOR,
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.
