In Re; George R. Ripplinger, Jr.

Filing 15

ORDER REINSTATING ATTORNEY. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the Petition for Reinstatement (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court SHALL reinstate Mr. Ripplinger as an attorney in good standing and return him to the roll of attorneys licensed to practice in this District. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/21/2022. (arm)

Case 3:21-mc-00045-DWD Document 15 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #141

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
In re:
GEORGE R. RIPPLINGER, JR.

)
)
)
)

Case No. 21-MC-00045-DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Mr. George Ripplinger, Jr. was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1970 (Doc. 4-2, ¶ 1).
On May 24, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court censored Mr. Ripplinger pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 762(b) in connection wi
County, Illinois Case, Henley v. Schaarf, et al, Case No. 2007-L-28 (Doc. 4-2). According to
allegations made by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Mr.

discovery, was dishonest, and violated court orders regarding the presentation of
evidence in the Henley trials (Doc. 4-2). Mr. Ripplinger did not contest these allegations
(Doc. 4-2, p. 14), and continues to accept the findings from the disciplinary actions against
him (See Doc. 13).
On March 4, 2021, the Missouri Supreme Co
in the State of Missouri for a period of one year (Doc. 1). The Missouri Supreme Court

initiating this action.

The Clerk of Court issued a show cause order, giving Mr.

Ripplinger 30 days to declare why the District should not impose similar discipline (Doc.
2). Mr. Ripplinger filed a timely response, noting that he was willing to accept the
1

Case 3:21-mc-00045-DWD Document 15 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #142

imposition of reciprocal discipline, but asked that he be censured opposed to suspended

In an Order dated May 14, 2021, Chief Judge Rosenstengel suspended Mr.
the Southern District of Illinois with
verification of his reinstatement of the bar of the Supreme Court of

response to the show cause order had provided none.
Mr. Ripplinger would have been eligible to petition for reinstatement in the State
of Missouri on March 4, 2022. While Mr. Ripplinger completed his state suspension, he
did not petition the Missouri Supreme Court for reinstatement.

Mr. Ripplinger

represents that he is currently 77 years of age and does not desire to resume the practice
of law in Missouri. Instead, he is winding down his practice in general. Mr. Ripplinger
states that he remains in good standing with the bar of Illinois, and he only seeks
reinstatement in this District so he can continue the representation of his client in a matter
that was removed to this Court (Doc. 9).

This case was originally filed in the Circuit

Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, but was removed to this District on May 6, 2022. See
Gering v. Burger et al, Case No. 22-cv-965-SPM, at Doc. 1.
On May 11, 2022, Mr. Ripplinger petitioned for reinstatement under Local Rule
83.4.(c), which provides:
Petitions for reinstatement . . . under this rule shall be filed with the Chief
Judge. Upon receipt of the petition, the Chief Judge shall promptly refer the
petition to counsel and shall assign the matter for prompt hearing before
2

Case 3:21-mc-00045-DWD Document 15 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #143

one or more judges of this Court . . . . The judge or judges assigned to the
matter shall, within 30 days after referral, schedule a hearing at which the
petitioner shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she has the moral qualifications, competency, and
learning in the law required for admission to practice law before this Court
and that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental
to the integrity and standing of the bar or to the administration of justice or
subversive of the public interest.
SDIL-LR 83.4(c). Pursuant to Local Rule 83.4(c), Chief Judge Rosenstengel assigned this
matter to the undersigned for a hearing, and the Court appointed Mr. Ted Gianaris of
Gianaris Trial Lawyers as counsel (Doc. 12).

Mr. Gianaris conducted a thorough

investigation, noting his findings in a letter to the Court and recommending
reinstatement (Doc. 13).
be reinstated, Mr. Gianaris noted that
Ripplinger was candid and fully acknowledged his disciplinary history and took
responsibility for his actions. Mr. Gianaris further noted that Ripplinger is a seasoned

indeed, he is currently serving the Illinois State Bar Association. Mr. Gianaris noted that
he did not have information about Mr. Ripplin
was in the record, namely that Ripplinger provided mitigating evidence to the Illinois
Supreme Court by cooperating in his disciplinary proceedings and has no prior discipline
over his long career. Mr. Gianaris indicated that Ripplinger has subpoenaed witnesses
that may be able to testify as to his moral qualifications should the Court determine that
a hearing on this matter is needed. Finally, Mr. Gianaris observed that Ripplinger has
ired for admission to practice law before
3

Case 3:21-mc-00045-DWD Document 15 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #144

mpetency and learning
were never called into question in any of his disciplinary proceedings.
The Court FINDS by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. George R. Ripplinger,
Jr. has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency, and learning in
the law required for admission to practice law in this District and that his resumption of
the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or to
the administration of justice or subversion of the public interest. See SDIL-LR 83.4(c). The
Court sees no reason to make the reinstatement conditional upon payment of some, part,
or all of the proceedings. See SDIL-LR 83.4(f). The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Motion
for Reinstatement (Doc. 9). The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to REINSTATE Mr.
Ripplinger as an attorney in good standing and to forward a copy of this Order to him at
the address listed on the docket.
Finally, the Court thanks Mr. Gianaris for his thorough investigation of this matter;
his time is greatly appreciated.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 21, 2022
_____________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

4