From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ruben

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 28, 2011
Nos. 1708 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, 6 DB 2011 (Pa. Apr. 28, 2011)

Summary

In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ann Adele Ruben, No. 6 DB 2011 (Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board 2/8/11)(S.Ct. Order 4/28/11), Respondent Ruben, who had no record of discipline, was suspended for one year and one day for engaging in neglect and lack of communication in sixteen immigration matters; this misconduct occurred over a period approximating thirty- three months.

Summary of this case from Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Perlman

Opinion

Nos. 1708 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, 6 DB 2011.

April 28, 2011.

Attorney Registration No. 46495 (Philadelphia).


ORDER


AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated February 8, 2011, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is

ORDERED that Ann Adele Ruben is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day and she shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.


Summaries of

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ruben

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 28, 2011
Nos. 1708 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, 6 DB 2011 (Pa. Apr. 28, 2011)

In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ann Adele Ruben, No. 6 DB 2011 (Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board 2/8/11)(S.Ct. Order 4/28/11), Respondent Ruben, who had no record of discipline, was suspended for one year and one day for engaging in neglect and lack of communication in sixteen immigration matters; this misconduct occurred over a period approximating thirty- three months.

Summary of this case from Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Perlman

In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ann Adele Ruben, 6 DB 2011 (Pa. 2011), respondent engaged in neglect and lack of communication in sixteen immigration matters, In twelve of the sixteen client matters, she made misrepresentations to her clients and others to conceal her neglect.

Summary of this case from Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan
Case details for

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ruben

Case Details

Full title:OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. ANN ADELE RUBEN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 28, 2011

Citations

Nos. 1708 Disciplinary Docket No. 3, 6 DB 2011 (Pa. Apr. 28, 2011)

Citing Cases

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Perlman

390. There is precedent that supports the recommendation that Respondent receive a suspension of eighteen…

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan

Under these circumstances, Braun mitigation is appropriate. In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Ann Adele…