In Re the Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Vitko
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
John P. Vitko comes before this court as respondent in disciplinary proceedings for the second time. In 1991 he was publicly reprimanded for improperly handling a bonus paid by Specialty Manufacturing Company. In late 1984 when Dorsey & Whitney informed Vitko that his partnership was being terminated effective June 30, 1985, Vitko instructed Specialty Manufacturing to withhold his entire 1984 bonus as taxes. Pursuant to his agreement with the law firm, Vitko was required to assign all salary and bonus paid him by Specialty Manufacturing to the firm. Vitko had regularly assigned only…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against VitkoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
4Cited by7 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. SteinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BrookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against PinottiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- In Re DevaneyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re Disciplinary Action Against DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.