Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-401.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARTSOCK. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-401.] (No. 2001-1208—Submitted February 8, 2022—Decided February 14, 2022.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. ____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on July 26, 2021, of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, Walter D. Hartsock, Attorney Registration No. 0031434. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(25)(E), respondent's petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Professional Conduct. The board filed its final report in this court on December 10, 2021, recommending that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. No objections to said final report were filed, and this cause was considered by the court. {¶ 2} Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that the petition for reinstatement of respondent is granted and that respondent, Walter D. Hartsock, last known address in Jacksonville, Florida, is reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. It is further ordered that respondent shall complete a one-year period of law practice monitoring, with monitoring focused on reentry to the practice of law and an attorney’s professional and ethical obligations. {¶ 3} It is further ordered by the court that respondent be taxed the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $782.12, less the deposit of $500.00, for a total balance due of $282.12 payable, by cashier’s check or money order, by respondent on or before 90 days from the date of this order. If costs are not paid on or before 90 days from the date of this order, interest SUPREME COURT OF OHIO at the rate of 10 percent per annum will accrue until costs are paid in full. It is further ordered that if costs are not paid in full on or before 90 days from the date of this order, the matter may be referred to the attorney general for collection and respondent may be found in contempt and suspended until all costs and accrued interest are paid in full. It is further ordered that respondent is liable for all collections costs pursuant to R.C. 131.02 if the debt is certified to the attorney general for collection. {¶ 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 previous case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Hartsock, 94 Ohio St.3d 18, 2001-Ohio-6977, 759 N.E.2d 778. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, 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.
