In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Haas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Haas, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio115.] IN RE CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SUSPENSION OF HAAS. [Cite as In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Haas, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-115.] (No. CLE-2004-64540—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided January 20, 2015.) 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 former 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 2002-2003 reporting period. {¶ 2} On April 8, 2005, this court adopted the recommendation of the commission, imposed a sanction fee upon respondent, and suspended respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and (5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complied with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in former Gov.Bar R. X(7); complied with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio; complied with the April 8, 2005 order and all other orders of the court; and this court ordered respondent reinstated. {¶ 3} On January 9, 2015, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to former 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 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 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 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, Sheila Ann Haas, 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.
