In Re Dumas

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In Re Dumas

600 S.E.2d 61, 360 S.C. 33, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 241

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided December 6, 2002·Published

Opinion

ORDER

By Opinion dated July 20, 1992, petitioner was disbarred from the practice of law in South Carolina. In the Matter of Dumas, 309 S.C. 5, 419 S.E.2d 791 (1992). Petitioner has now filed a petition for reinstatement. The Committee on Character and Fitness recommended that the petition be denied. We disagree with the recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness and hereby reinstate petitioner to the practice of law in this state.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

s/James E. Moore, J.

s/John H. Waller, Jr., J.

s/E.C. Burnett, III, J.

s/Costa M. Pleicones, J.

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

ORDER

By Opinion dated July 20, 1992, petitioner was disbarred from the practice of law in South Carolina. In the Matter of Dumas, 309 S.C. 5, 419 S.E.2d 791 (1992). Petitioner has now filed a petition for reinstatement. The Committee on Character and Fitness recommended that the petition be denied. We disagree with the recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness and hereby reinstate petitioner to the practice of law in this state.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

s/James E. Moore, J.

s/John H. Waller, Jr., J.

s/E.C. Burnett, III, J.

s/Costa M. Pleicones, J.

In Re Dumas, 600 S.E.2d 61, 360 S.C. 33, 2002 S.C. LEXIS 241 (S.C. 2002).

Pincite

600 S.E.2d 61 (In Re Dumas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related