Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 14, 1994No. 811 Disciplinary Dkt. 2PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

This matter is before us by virtue of our constitutional power to supervise the conduct of attorneys. Article 5 § 10(c). Three days of hearings were held before a Disciplinary Board Hearing Committee, which thereafter recommended that Anonymous Attorney be privately reprimanded and Harry C. Jackson, Esquire, be disbarred. The attorneys and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) filed exceptions to the Hearing Committee Report and Recommendation. The Disciplinary Board made the same findings and recommendations as the Hearing Committee. Anonymous Attorney advised this…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Office of the Disciplinary Counsel v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. GrigsbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Berlant AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. SternSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. DuffieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Morris & Doherty, PC v. LockwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. ValentinoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Wishnefsky v. RILEY AND FANNELL, PCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. In re Member of State BarArizona Supreme Court · 2010

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API