Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer

829 A.2d 669

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 27, 2003

DocketNo. 849 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

StatusPublished

This text of 829 A.2d 669 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer) 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. Meyer, 829 A.2d 669 (Pa. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2003, there having been filed with this Court by Ronald K. Meyer his verified Statement of Resignation dated April 18, 2003, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Ronald K. Meyer be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disci[670]*670plinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Justice LAMB did not participate in this matter.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2003, there having been filed with this Court by Ronald K. Meyer his verified Statement of Resignation dated April 18, 2003, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Ronald K. Meyer be and it is hereby accepted and he is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disci[670]*670plinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

Justice LAMB did not participate in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 A.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-meyer-pa-2003.