In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Pringle
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Pringle, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio3169.] IN RE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SUSPENSION OF PRINGLE. [Cite as In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Pringle, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-3169.] (No. CLE-1995-31357 Submitted May 15, 2013 Decided July 22 2013.) ON REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION. ____________________ {¶ 1} This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal Education, for the 1993-1994 reporting period. {¶ 2} On August 12, 1996, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(7), respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, respondent complies with this and all other orders of the court, and this court orders respondent reinstated. {¶ 3} On May 6, 2013, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2), finding that respondent has paid all fees assessed for noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies, and is now in full compliance with all requirements of Gov.Bar R. X and recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified that respondent had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required SUPREME COURT OF OHIO during the suspension by this court s order of suspension. Respondent has satisfied all the requirements of this court s order of suspension. {¶ 4} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the recommendation of the commission is adopted and respondent, Elbert Roy Pringle, is hereby reinstated to the practice of law. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, 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.
