In re Sagett

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Sagett

829 A.2d 672

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 24, 2003·No. No. 686 Disciplinary Docket No. 2·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Rec[673] ommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 4, 2008, the Petition for Review and response thereto, the Petition for Reinstatement is denied. Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2003, upon consideration of the Report and Rec[673] ommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 4, 2008, the Petition for Review and response thereto, the Petition for Reinstatement is denied. Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

In re Sagett, 829 A.2d 672 (Pa. 2003).

Pincite

829 A.2d 672 (In re Sagett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.