The Ohio State Bar Association publishes a report every Monday. of notable cases from the Ohio Supeme Court and the appellate courts around the state. These are sorted by topic. This week, while looking through the report, I noticed that the Supreme Court had reinstated a fellow by the name of James King to the practice of law.

Just on a lark, I was interested to see what Mr. King had done to get suspended, and how he got back in the good graces of the Supreme Court again.

Well, the case header said that King was disbarred for "dishonesty, deceit, or misrpresentation," not to mention a "false statement to client regarding status of case." Fair enough.

Then I read a little further. It turns out this is not Mr. King's first resurrection from being suspended; he was suspended in 1990 for "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." This happened after King was convicted, in federal court, for filing false income tax returns. In 1991, King was restated.

But he had another chance to argue before the Supreme Court. In 1996, he was suspended for six months for "neglecting an entrusted legal matter." This was his last disciplinary infraction until 2004.

Now, here's my question. We've got one "neglecting entrusted legal matter." We've got two "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentations."

At what point, precisely, do we say, "Jim, y'know, maybe you should take up some other profession?"

He's already had his three strikes, hasn't he?