[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 72 Ohio St.3d 244.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHEATSLEY. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Sheatsley, 1995-Ohio-15.] 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. __________________ {¶ 1} 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. {¶ 2} 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. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

__________________ Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. James R. Sheatsley, pro se. __________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 3} 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. __________________

2