Tapp v. Ligon

11RI agree that, given our consistency in imposing serious sanctions where an attorney purloins a client’s funds, an interim suspension is warranted in CPC Docket 2012-049, the Dr. Hurst case involving discrepancies in Attorney Tapp’s client trust account. I, however, do not believe that is appropriate for the companion case, CPC Docket 2012-047, the case involving Attorney Tapp’s mishandling of two Chapter 18 bankruptcy petitions. Furthermore, I think that the standard used to evaluate petitions to lift the interim suspension, which the majority has adopted, is problematic and contrary to…