In re Peterman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Peterman

829 A.2d 670

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Peterman. Read the opinion of the Court — 569 Pa. 567 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 30, 2003·No. No. 758 Disciplinary Docket No. 3·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2003, a Rule having been entered upon Roger Clark Peterman by this Court on February 28, 2003, to show cause why he should not be disbarred and, upon consideration of the response filed, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Rule is made absolute, Roger Clark Peterman is disbarred from the Bar of this Commonwealth retroactive to August 1, 2002, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

Justice CASTILLE and SAYLOR respectfully dissent from the imposition of disbarment and would only impose reciprocal discipline as announced by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2003, a Rule having been entered upon Roger Clark Peterman by this Court on February 28, 2003, to show cause why he should not be disbarred and, upon consideration of the response filed, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Rule is made absolute, Roger Clark Peterman is disbarred from the Bar of this Commonwealth retroactive to August 1, 2002, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

Justice CASTILLE and SAYLOR respectfully dissent from the imposition of disbarment and would only impose reciprocal discipline as announced by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

In re Peterman, 829 A.2d 670 (Pa. 2003).

Pincite

829 A.2d 670 (In re Peterman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.