In re Steele

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re Steele

880 A.2d 1211

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 24, 2005

DocketNo. 311 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

StatusPublished

This text of 880 A.2d 1211 (In re Steele) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Steele, 880 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2005, a Rule having been issued upon Charles Ellis Steele pursuant to Rule 218(c)(6), Pa.R.D.E., on March 24, 2005, to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is discharged and the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby granted.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Disciplinary 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 June, 2005, a Rule having been issued upon Charles Ellis Steele pursuant to Rule 218(c)(6), Pa.R.D.E., on March 24, 2005, to show cause why an order denying reinstatement should not be entered, upon consideration of the responses filed, the Rule is discharged and the Petition for Reinstatement is hereby granted.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Disciplinary Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 A.2d 1211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steele-pa-2005.