In re Disciplinary Action Against Merlin

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In re Disciplinary Action Against Merlin

549 N.W.2d 625, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 433, 1996 WL 385404

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 1, 1996·No. No. C4-96-1201·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon the application of the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and upon evidence that respondent, Carol Sue Merlin, cannot be found in the state or served personally with the petition for disciplinary action,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law. Respondent has 1 year from the date of the filing of this order to move for vacation of the order for suspension and for leave to answer the disciplinary petition.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Alan C. Page Associate Justice

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon the application of the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, pursuant to Rule 12(c)(1), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility, and upon evidence that respondent, Carol Sue Merlin, cannot be found in the state or served personally with the petition for disciplinary action,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law. Respondent has 1 year from the date of the filing of this order to move for vacation of the order for suspension and for leave to answer the disciplinary petition.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Alan C. Page Alan C. Page Associate Justice

In re Disciplinary Action Against Merlin, 549 N.W.2d 625, 1996 Minn. LEXIS 433, 1996 WL 385404 (Mich. 1996).

Pincite

549 N.W.2d 625 (In re Disciplinary Action Against Merlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.