Legal Opinion
In re Lord
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 31, 2006No. Nos. 380 & 432, Disciplinary Docket No. 3—Supreme Court; Nos. 149 DB 1995 & 48 DB 1998—Disciplinary BoardPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2006, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 21, 2006, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.
Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 218(c)(5) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Matter of CostiganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- In Re VerlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- In Re PerroneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- In Re GreenbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by1 opinion
- In the Matter of: Anthony C. CappuccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2025