Disciplinary Counsel v. Lech
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lech, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-4131.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LECH. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lech, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-4131.] (No. 2017-0359—Submitted June 2, 2017—Decided June 6, 2017.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. ____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Robert Raymond Lech, Attorney Registration No. 0073078, last known business address in Dublin, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of May 10, 2017, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(20)(B), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, to run concurrent with the suspension imposed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and ordered that respondent would not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until he is reinstated to the practice of law by the USPTO, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent shall serve two years of probation and that respondent’s probation will be satisfied by his compliance with the probation imposed by the USPTO. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. ________________________
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.
