Disciplinary Counsel v. Sheatsley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Sheatsley. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Sheatsley (1995), Ohio St.3d .] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -Reciprocal discipline for violation of disciplinary rule in West Virginia. (No. 95-9 -- Submitted February 7, 1995 -- Decided May 24, 1995,) On Certified Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 22287. Respondent, James Raymond Sheatsley of Beckley, West Virginia, Atttorney Registration No. 0023348, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on November 20, 1978 and is also licensed to practice law in West Virginia. On November 21, 1994, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia determined that respondent had violated former DR 7-109(C) of the West Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility (now Rule 1.8[k] of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct), which provided that: "A lawyer shall not pay, offer to pay, or acquiesce in the payment of compensation to a witness contingent upon the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case." The court issued respondent a public reprimand for this misconduct and ordered him to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. Pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1), relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia with the Clerk of this court. On January 5, 1995, we ordered respondent to show cause why we should not impose identical or comparable discipline in Ohio. On January 30, 1995, respondent advised us that he had no evidence to submit in response to the show cause order. Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. James R. Sheatsley, pro se. Per Curiam. As respondent has offered no reason why he should not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, we hereby publicly reprimand respondent. Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, 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.
