Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kanuck

  • 517 Pa. 160
  • 535 A.2d 69
  • 1987 Pa. LEXIS 879
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 24, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Larsen
On the bench
Papadakos, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott
Cited by
21 cases

holding that where the attorney did not intend to embezzle his clients’ funds and made restitution in every instance, a five year suspension was appropriate sanction

How later courts described this case

  • holding that where the attorney did not intend to embezzle his clients’ funds and made restitution in every instance, a five year suspension was appropriate sanction

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

LARSEN, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent. I would adopt a per se rule of disbarment of any attorney who converts (steals) his client’s money. Thus, I would disbar the respondent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.