Disciplinary Counsel v. Coyne
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Coyne, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-20.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COYNE. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Coyne, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-20.] Attorneys at law Reciprocal discipline from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court Public reprimand Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2012-1847 Submitted January 4, 2013 Decided January 9, 2013.) __________________ {¶ 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 31, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court, entered September 20, 2012, in Bar Counsel v. Coyne, case No. 2012-17, publicly reprimanding respondent. On November 21, 2012, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. {¶ 3} On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, John Martin Coyne, Attorney Registration No. 0026540, last known business address in New Bedford, Massachusetts, is publicly reprimanded, and this entry shall constitute the public reprimand. This public reprimand shall be considered as a factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed for subsequent misconduct. {¶ 4} It is further ordered 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 by the court that if after the date of this order, the Clients Security Fund awards any amount against respondent pursuant to SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of that award. {¶ 5} It is further ordered 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 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. 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.
