Background
Gregg August Rossi (Ohio Attorney Registration No. 0051224), a Youngstown attorney, was suspended from the practice of law for six months by the Supreme Court of Ohio in an order dated December 5, 2025. That suspension was issued pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3) and carried a conditional reinstatement requirement. The underlying disciplinary matter was previously addressed in Disciplinary Counsel v. Rossi, 2025-Ohio-5398.
Following the expiration of his suspension period, Rossi filed an application for reinstatement with the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court undertook further consideration of the matter upon receipt of that application.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio found that Rossi had complied with the December 5, 2025 suspension order as well as the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24), which governs the reinstatement process for suspended attorneys. Satisfied that all conditions had been met, the court ordered Rossi reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Ohio.
The court further directed the clerk to issue certified copies of the reinstatement order and to arrange for publication, as required by Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and (2). The decision was unanimous, with Chief Justice Kennedy and all six associate justices concurring.
Key Takeaways
- Rossi’s six-month suspension, imposed December 5, 2025 under Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), has been lifted after the court confirmed full compliance with all reinstatement conditions.
- Compliance with both the specific suspension order and the general reinstatement procedures of Gov.Bar R. V(24) was a prerequisite to reinstatement.
- The reinstatement was granted unanimously by all seven justices of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Why It Matters
This brief reinstatement order illustrates the procedural pathway Ohio attorneys must follow to return to practice after a conditional suspension. It confirms that the Supreme Court of Ohio conducts individualized review of an attorney’s compliance before restoring bar membership, even for relatively short suspensions.
For practitioners and disciplinary counsel, the case serves as a routine but instructive example of the court’s application of Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3) and V(24) — the rules governing suspension with conditional reinstatement and the mechanics of the reinstatement process itself.