Narrative Opinion Summary
Gary Scott Silverman is suspended from practicing law in Pennsylvania for thirty days, effective January 22, 2001. This suspension follows an earlier thirty-day suspension imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on February 28, 2000. Silverman was directed on November 17, 2000, to present any claims against the imposition of similar discipline in Pennsylvania but failed to respond. He is required to comply with all provisions of Rule 217 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (Pa.R.D.E.).
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance with Disciplinary Rulessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The suspended attorney is mandated to adhere to specific procedural rules following the suspension, ensuring that the disciplinary process is properly observed and concluded.
Reasoning: He is required to comply with all provisions of Rule 217 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (Pa.R.D.E.).
Failure to Contest Disciplinary Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney's suspension was finalized due to his failure to present any arguments against the imposition of similar discipline in Pennsylvania, indicating that non-response can result in the automatic enforcement of disciplinary measures.
Reasoning: Silverman was directed on November 17, 2000, to present any claims against the imposition of similar discipline in Pennsylvania but failed to respond.
Reciprocal Disciplinary Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Pennsylvania court imposes a suspension based on a prior suspension by the Maryland Court of Appeals, demonstrating the state's recognition and enforcement of disciplinary actions from other jurisdictions.
Reasoning: This suspension follows an earlier thirty-day suspension imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on February 28, 2000.