Legal Opinion · Dissent

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Quigley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 20, 2017No. 30 DB 2015; No. 2262 Disciplinary Docket No. 3; Attorney Registration No. 37440 (Monroe)Published

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

  1. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KellerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LucariniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. KneppSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. In Re OxmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API