# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stern

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 3, 1987 · 515 Pa. 68

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635287

## Case

- **Full name:** OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Peter M. STERN, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 3, 1987
- **Citations:** 515 Pa. 68; 526 A.2d 1180; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 716
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 62 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635287

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding disbarment was proper where the attorney helped a client illegally pay a union official

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, but write, separately to express my personal dismay in the fate that has befallen Respondent as the result of his misconduct. His illustrious background and prominence in the legal community serve to magnify his ethical breaches. It is entirely appropriate to expect the most meticulous adherence to ethical standards from those with exceptional ability. Such attorneys should serve as models for the other members of the Bar and as public symbols of the highest professional ideals. When a member of the elite, such as Respondent, debases himself and violates the law for sheer personal gain, public confidence in the legal profession is destroyed.
Respondent has no right to expect less than disbarment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635287. Public record. Not legal advice.