Legal Opinion
Grievance Committee v. Trantolo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 3, 1984No. 10775PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpeziale, C. J.
The defendants, Joseph Trantolo and Vincent Trantolo, are members of the bar authorized to practice law in the state of Connecticut. They have appealed from the trial court’s judgment reprimanding them for violating Disciplinary Rule 2-101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (hereinafter DR 2-101). Because we hold that the defendants’ actions are not prohibited by the Code of Professional Responsibility, we find error.
The defendants operated several law offices in the state under the name of “The Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo and Trantolo.” In September, 1978, the defendants…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of WillingboroSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. RozbickiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- State v. PareSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Pitchell v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Whalen v. IvesConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.