Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Olkon

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 31, 1982No. 51102Published

1DissentTodd, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The facts giving rise to this disciplinary proceedings are set forth in detail in our opinion relating to the criminal felony charges of which Olkon was found guilty, State v. Olkon, 299 N.W.2d 89 *197(Minn.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1132, 101 S.Ct. 954, 67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981) and need not be restated or summarized. The simple issue before this court is whether an attorney who is presently suspended from the practice of law for commission of two felonies arising out of his law practice and is on probation as a result of the sentences imposed in the criminal proceedings…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. OlkonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. Matter of KimmelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API