Case ID: pa_532/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: NIX, Chief Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

616 A.2d 640
    OFFICE of DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Mario F. DRIGGS, Respondent.
    No. 603 Disciplinary Docket No. 2.
    Disciplinary Board No. 2 DB 88.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 19, 1992.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 1992, the Order entered by this Court on December 30, 1987, is vacated, and respondent is hereby reinstated to the practice of law in this Commonwealth.

LARSEN, J., did not participate in this matter.

NIX, C.J., files a concurring statement.

PAPADAKOS, J., dissents.

NIX, Chief Justice,

concurring.

I concur in the decision reached by the majority today. I write separately only to note the particular facts of this case.

Mr. Driggs was convicted of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 27, 1987. This Court suspended him from the practice of law on December 30, 1987, and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 214(f), Pa.R.D.E. Because the Board’s original recommended sanction of a four-year suspension has already been served, I see no reason to disagree with Mr. Driggs’ reinstatement to the practice of law in this Commonwealth at this time.