# Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Price

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 24, 1999 · 557 Pa. 166

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765621

## Case

- **Full name:** OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Neil Werner PRICE, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 24, 1999
- **Citations:** 557 Pa. 166; 732 A.2d 599; 1999 Pa. LEXIS 1812
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9765621

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an attorney violated Pa. R.P.C. 3.3(a)(1) because he “relied on rumors, innuendo and his own perceptions” instead of “conducting a reasonably diligent inquiry into the accuracy of his statements.”

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The appropriate discipline, in my view, is disbarment.
Justices CASTILLE and NIGRO join this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765621. Public record. Not legal advice.