Legal Opinion
Matter of Levine
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 1993No. SB-91-0028-DPublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EINO M. JACOBSON, Court of Appeals Judge.
The Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court has recommended that Jack Levine (respondent) be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. Respondent filed a timely appeal from the commission’s recommendation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 53(e), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 15,1989, the state bar filed a formal complaint against respondent, charging him with violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court (Rule 42), as well as the Code…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kelly v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Brown v. Guarantee InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SperyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- In Re ShannonArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re ComfortSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007
- In Re PeasleyArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- In the Matter of Rachel R. AlexanderArizona Supreme Court · 2013
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.