Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferleger

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferleger

880 A.2d 1217

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

DocketNo. 1035 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

StatusPublished

This text of 880 A.2d 1217 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferleger) 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

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferleger, 880 A.2d 1217 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2005, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 4, 2005, the Motion for Oral Argument, the Petition for Review and responses thereto, the Motion for Oral Argument is denied pursuant to Rule 208(e)(4), Pa.R.D.E., and it is hereby

ORDERED that David Ferleger be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, the Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status is denied, and Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that the expenses incurred in the investigation and processing of these matters shall be paid by David Ferleger.

MESSRS. Justice CASTILLE and BAER dissent as to the imposition of the sanction.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2005, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated May 4, 2005, the Motion for Oral Argument, the Petition for Review and responses thereto, the Motion for Oral Argument is denied pursuant to Rule 208(e)(4), Pa.R.D.E., and it is hereby

ORDERED that David Ferleger be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, the Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status is denied, and Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that the expenses incurred in the investigation and processing of these matters shall be paid by David Ferleger.

MESSRS. Justice CASTILLE and BAER dissent as to the imposition of the sanction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 A.2d 1217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-ferleger-pa-2005.