Background
Timothy Joseph Grendell (Attorney Registration No. 0005827), a Chardon, Ohio attorney, had been suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Ohio. By order dated November 21, 2025, the court imposed an 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed on conditions, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3). That underlying disciplinary matter was reported as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grendell, 2025-Ohio-5239.
Following the suspension, Grendell filed an application for reinstatement before the Supreme Court of Ohio. The reinstatement proceeding required the court to assess whether Grendell had satisfied the terms of the November 2025 order and complied with the procedural requirements governing reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(24).
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio, with all seven justices concurring, found that Grendell had complied with the November 21, 2025 suspension order and with the reinstatement requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(24). On that basis, the court ordered that Grendell be 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 its publication, as required under Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and (2).
Key Takeaways
- Grendell’s 18-month suspension (12 months stayed) arose from the disciplinary proceeding reported as 2025-Ohio-5239; the reinstatement order confirms he served the active portion and met all conditions.
- Reinstatement was granted unanimously — Chief Justice Kennedy and all six associate justices concurred.
- Compliance with both the specific suspension order and the general reinstatement rules of Gov.Bar R. V(24) was the operative standard the court applied.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Ohio Supreme Court’s reinstatement process for suspended attorneys: a lawyer who fulfills the conditions of a stayed suspension and satisfies the procedural requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(24) is entitled to return to practice. The unanimous grant signals that Grendell’s compliance was uncontested.
For practitioners and disciplinary counsel, the order is a straightforward application of existing rules rather than a doctrinal development, but it serves as a public record — required by rule to be published — that Grendell is again authorized to practice law in Ohio.