Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2024-Ohio-1438.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALEXANDER. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2024-Ohio-1438.] (No. 2023-0977—Submitted April 16, 2024—Decided April 17, 2024.) ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. ____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Christopher Mark Alexander, Attorney Registration No. 0073543, last known business address in Mason, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of March 14, 2024, and its order of January 5, 2023, in case No. 2023-0006, In re Alexander, finds that respondent has complied with these orders 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 pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3) and consistent with the opinion rendered herein on March 14, 2024, respondent, Christopher Mark Alexander, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and remain in compliance with the terms of his (1) courtordered community control, (2) substance-abuse-treatment program, including aftercare, and (3) existing Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program contract. It is further ordered that if respondent fails to comply with a condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full one-year suspension. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 5} It is further ordered that the Office of Attorney Services shall not issue a certificate of good standing to respondent during any period of suspension, including any stayed period of suspension. {¶ 6} It is further ordered by the court that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded against respondent by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered by the court that if after the date of this order the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection within 90 days of the notice of such award. {¶ 7} It is further ordered that respondent shall keep the clerk and disciplinary counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications. {¶ 8} It is further ordered that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, to respondent’s last known address. {¶ 9} 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). {¶ 10} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2024-Ohio-900, __ N.E.3d __. KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, 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.
