A large percentage of disbarments and
disciplinary actions arise out of client trust fund mismanagement.
Not exact matches
Gillette v. N. Dakota
Disciplinary Bd., No. 09 - 1598, involved an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing an attorney disciplinary board from prosecuting a disciplinary action for alleged misconduct arising out of plaintiff's representation of Native American clients in tribal court
Disciplinary Bd., No. 09 - 1598, involved an
action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing an attorney
disciplinary board from prosecuting a disciplinary action for alleged misconduct arising out of plaintiff's representation of Native American clients in tribal court
disciplinary board from prosecuting a
disciplinary action for alleged misconduct arising out of plaintiff's representation of Native American clients in tribal court
disciplinary action for alleged misconduct
arising out of plaintiff's representation
of Native American clients in tribal court litigation.
However, one
of the aspects
of the peer review process, per section 8
of that statute, is that the investigations, proceedings and records
of the peer review panel, a committee
of a hospital board,
disciplinary board, government board or agent
of one
of these «shall not be subject to discovery or introduction into evidence in any civil or administrative
action against a provider
of professional health services
arising out of the matters which are the subject
of evaluation and review...» In other words, if you file a medical malpractice lawsuit against a Florida doctor, the records contained in these peer review files — even if relevant — can't be compelled.