
    Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, 122 Ohio St.3d 1222, 2009-Ohio-3723.]
    (Nos. 2006-0738 and 2008-0037
    Submitted June 23, 2009
    Decided June 30, 2009.)
   {¶ 1} These causes came on for further consideration upon the filing of applications for reinstatement by respondent, Thomas Joel Manning, Attorney Registration No. 0059759, last known business address in Dayton, Ohio.

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of November 22, 2006 in case No. 2006-0738 wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of two years, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 3} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio in case No. 2006-0738.

{¶ 4} The court coming now to consider its order of July 8, 2008 in case No. 2008-0037, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent for a period of six months to commence at the conclusion of the two-year suspension ordered in case No. 2006-0738, followed by a two-year probationary period, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). Therefore,

{¶ 5} It is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio in case No. 2008-0037. It is further ordered that respondent is hereby placed on monitored probation for a period of two years from the date of this order.

{¶ 6} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, relator shall file with the Clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that at the end of respondent’s probationary period in case No. 2008-0037, relator shall file with the Clerk of this court a report indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.

{¶ 7} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, respondent may apply for termination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that respondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an application for termination of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the Clerk of this court a report indicating that respondent has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated.

{¶ 8} 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.

{¶ 9} For earlier cases, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, 111 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-5794, 856 N.E.2d 259, and 119 Ohio St.3d 52, 2008-Ohio-3319, 891 N.E.2d 743.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.  