Legal Opinion
In re Anonymous No. 131 D.B. 90
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 10, 1992No. Disciplinary Board Docket No. 131 D.B. 90Published
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Member
Pursuant to Rule 208(d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your honorable court with respect to the above-captioned petition for discipline.
*171HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
On November 30, 1990, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (hereinafter petitioner) filed a petition for discipline against [ ] (hereinafter respondent). Among the misconduct set forth, the petition alleged that respondent had mismanaged, commingled and converted client funds.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LucariniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- In Re HarrisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In Re VrdolyakIllinois Supreme Court · 1990
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SimonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- In re AltomerianosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.