Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentJustice Donohue
I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision to impose the sanction of disbarment on the record presented here. The essential purpose of our system of lawyer discipline is “to protect the public from unfit attorneys and to maintain the integrity of the legal system.” Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Keller, 509 Pa. 573, 506 A.2d 872, 875 (1986); In re Oxman, 496 Pa. 534, 437 A.2d 1169, 1174 (1981). While the aim of the disciplinary system is not intended to be punitive, sanctions are a necessary means to accomplish its end and are punitive in nature. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LucariniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KneppSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- In Re OxmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.