Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BRUEGGEMAN. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-21.] (No. 2019-1734—Submitted January 7, 2021—Decided January 11, 2021.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. ____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Edward Paul Brueggeman, Attorney Registration No. 0029159, last known business address in Mason, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of April 23, 2020, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years, with the final 18 months stayed on condition, 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. {¶ 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)(E)(1) and that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2). {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman, 160 Ohio St.3d 198, 2020-Ohio-1578, 155 N.E.3d 833. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. ________________________ 1

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.