Disciplinary Counsel v. York
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. York, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-1265.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. YORK. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. York, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-1265.] Attorneys at law Reciprocal discipline from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Public reprimand and 24 months probation Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2014-0130 Submitted March 26, 2014 Decided March 31, 2014.) ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. D2013-19. __________________ {¶ 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 January 24, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ) entered November 18, 2013, in In re York, in proceeding No. D2013-19, in which the USPTO publicly reprimanded respondent and ordered him to serve probation for a period of 24 months. On January 30, 2014, 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. {¶ 3} On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Olen Lee York III, Attorney Registration No. 0074834, last known business address in Milton, West Virginia, is publicly reprimanded and ordered to serve probation for a period of 24 months. It is further ordered that respondent s probation will be satisfied by respondent s compliance with the probation imposed by the USPTO. Respondent s probation will not be terminated until such time as respondent s SUPREME COURT OF OHIO probation has been terminated in the USPTO. Respondent is ordered to notify the court when the probation imposed by the USPTO has been terminated. {¶ 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 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 that award. {¶ 5} It is further ordered that respondent may not apply for termination of probation in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for termination of probation set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (2) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (3) respondent files evidence with the clerk of this court and disciplinary counsel demonstrating his termination of probation in the USPTO, (4) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, and (5) this court orders the probation of respondent terminated. {¶ 6} It is further ordered that until such time as respondent fully complies with this order, respondent shall keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications. {¶ 7} 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. {¶ 8} 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. 2 January Term, 2014 {¶ 9} 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. ______________________ 3
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.
