In Re Reinstatement of Pacenza
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Per curiam
T1 On June 13, 2006, we suspended the attorney for two years and one day for his dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, and misleading actions in a real estate transaction resulting in significant economic harm, embarrassment to the legal profession and to this Court, and an undermining of public confidence in the Bar Association and its members. We deemed the extended suspension appropriate based on Pacenza's disciplinary history, discipline administered in similar cases, and the attorney's unwillingness to acknowledge his wrongdoing. 1
T2 Upon a de novo review, 2 we determine that the attorney…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. RaskinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. FarrantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
- In Re Amendment to the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings Rule 7, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App.1Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In re Reinstatement of KerrSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
- In Re the Reinstatement of MunsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- In Re the Reinstatement of MuminaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- In re the Reinstatement of BlakeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- In re the Reinstatement of MorganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.