The Ohio Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline Tuesday on attorney Michael Edward Edminister, mirroring a six-month suspension with stayed execution originally ordered by Colorado's Supreme Court in November 2025.
The court suspended Edminister from practicing law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed provided he complies with conditions ordered by Colorado's Supreme Court. The discipline stems from proceedings in *The People of the State of Colorado v. Michael E. Edminister*, case No. 25PDJ75, decided by Colorado's high court on Nov. 21, 2025.
The Ohio case, *Disciplinary Counsel v. Edminister* (2026-Ohio-331), proceeded under Gov.Bar R. V(20), which governs reciprocal discipline between states. Under these provisions, Ohio courts typically impose identical or comparable discipline when an attorney licensed in Ohio faces sanctions in another jurisdiction.
On Dec. 30, 2025, Ohio's disciplinary counsel filed a certified copy of the Colorado order with the Ohio Supreme Court. The following day, Ohio's court ordered Edminister to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed in Ohio. No objections were filed, and the court considered the matter without opposition.
The Colorado Supreme Court had suspended Edminister for six months, with the entire suspension stayed upon successful completion of a two-year probation period subject to unspecified conditions. Ohio's court adopted this exact disciplinary framework, ensuring consistency across jurisdictions where Edminister is licensed to practice.
Edminister holds Attorney Registration No. 0037741 in Ohio, with his last known business address listed in Akron. The Ohio Supreme Court's order specifically states that if Edminister fails to comply with Colorado's probation conditions, the stay will be revoked and he must serve the full six-month suspension in Ohio.
The reciprocal discipline system serves multiple purposes in attorney regulation. It prevents attorneys from evading discipline by practicing in different states and ensures consistent professional standards across jurisdictions. When one state imposes discipline, other states where the attorney is licensed typically follow suit to maintain uniform enforcement.
Gov.Bar R. V(20)(C) authorizes Ohio courts to impose reciprocal discipline based on sanctions imposed by other jurisdictions. The rule recognizes that attorney misconduct in one state raises concerns about fitness to practice law anywhere. By coordinating discipline across state lines, bar authorities can better protect clients and maintain professional standards.
The Ohio order includes additional restrictions during the suspension period. The Office of Attorney Services cannot issue certificates of good standing to Edminister during any period of suspension, including the stayed period. This limitation affects his ability to practice law in other jurisdictions that might require proof of good standing.
While the Ohio Supreme Court's order references the underlying Colorado discipline, it does not detail the specific misconduct that triggered the original sanctions. The Colorado case number 25PDJ75 suggests the matter involved professional discipline proceedings, but the nature of Edminister's violations remains unclear from the Ohio proceedings.
The swift processing of this reciprocal discipline case demonstrates the efficiency of interstate coordination in attorney regulation. From Colorado's November 2025 order to Ohio's February 2026 decision, the process took approximately three months, including notice periods and opportunities for response.
Reciprocal discipline cases typically proceed more quickly than original disciplinary proceedings because they rely on findings already made by the originating jurisdiction. Ohio courts generally defer to sister state determinations unless the discipline violates due process or public policy considerations.
The stayed suspension allows Edminister to continue practicing law while complying with Colorado's probation conditions. This approach balances public protection with rehabilitation, giving the attorney an opportunity to demonstrate compliance with professional standards while maintaining the threat of immediate suspension for violations.
For attorneys practicing in multiple jurisdictions, this case illustrates the importance of maintaining compliance with all applicable bar rules. Discipline in one state can quickly spread to other licensing jurisdictions, multiplying the consequences of professional misconduct.
The case also highlights the coordination between state bar authorities in sharing disciplinary information and ensuring consistent enforcement. This system helps maintain public confidence in the legal profession by preventing attorneys from escaping consequences through geographic forum shopping.
Edminister's case will remain subject to monitoring as he completes Colorado's two-year probation period. Any violations of the probation conditions could trigger immediate implementation of the six-month suspension in both states, demonstrating the ongoing consequences of professional discipline across jurisdictions.