Margolis's Petition

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Margolis's Petition

124 A. 439, 280 Pa. 296, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 511

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 14, 1924

DocketNo. 245, Misc. Docket, No. 4, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A. 439 (Margolis's Petition) 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

Margolis's Petition, 124 A. 439, 280 Pa. 296, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 511 (Pa. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Jacob Margolis, attorney-at-law, was disbarred by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on September 15, 1920, and February 14, 1921, the decree was affirmed by this court: Margolis’s Case, 269 Pa. 206. He has filed a petition asking us to “readmit” him and issue “a certificate to that effect” so that he may “practice law outside of the State of Pennsylvania.”

The rules of this court provide that all proceedings for disbarment shall be had in the “proper court” of the county where the attorney “misbehaved himself,” or where “his office” is located, or in “the proper court of another county near thereto”; see Buie 17. This court acts purely as an appellate tribunal; though, when we affirm a disbarment order, the effect, under the above rule, is to, strike the name of the attorney from our roll. A petition such as the one at bar, which asks us to reconsider the facts on which the decree is based, should be made to the court that found those facts, and not to us.

The petition is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam,

Jacob Margolis, attorney-at-law, was disbarred by the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on September 15, 1920, and February 14, 1921, the decree was affirmed by this court: Margolis’s Case, 269 Pa. 206. He has filed a petition asking us to “readmit” him and issue “a certificate to that effect” so that he may “practice law outside of the State of Pennsylvania.”

The rules of this court provide that all proceedings for disbarment shall be had in the “proper court” of the county where the attorney “misbehaved himself,” or where “his office” is located, or in “the proper court of another county near thereto”; see Buie 17. This court acts purely as an appellate tribunal; though, when we affirm a disbarment order, the effect, under the above rule, is to, strike the name of the attorney from our roll. A petition such as the one at bar, which asks us to reconsider the facts on which the decree is based, should be made to the court that found those facts, and not to us.

The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A. 439, 280 Pa. 296, 1924 Pa. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margoliss-petition-pa-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack