446 IN RE: SALAMO [310 Cite as 310 Ark. 446 (1992) IN RE: Michael Raymond SALAMO, Arkansas Bar ID # 83151 841 S.W.2d 589 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 21, 1992 ATTORNEYS & CLIENTS — DISBARMENT PROCEEDING — DISBARMENT FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS NOT APPEALED — ATTORNEY DISBARRED. — Where a circuit judge found an attorney guilty of professional misconduct and barred the attorney from practicing law in this State, no appeal was filed, notice was given to the attorney of the petition for disbarment, and the attorney responded admitting that the order was entered, the Supreme Court granted the petition of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct seeking an order disbarring the attorney from the practice of law in Arkansas and directing that his name be removed from the list of attorneys permitted to practice law. Petition for Disbarment; granted. James.A. Neal, Committee on Professional Conduct, for
ARK.] IN RE: SALAMO 447 Cite as 310 Ark. 446 (1992) petitioner. Appellee, pro se. PER CURIAM. The Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct has petitioned this Court alleging that attorney Michael Raymond Salamo, ID #83151, has been disbarred by order of the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, dated March 11, 1992, for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility; that no appeal having been taken, said order is now final; that this Court should order the disbarment of Michael Raymond Salamo from the practice of law in Arkansas and direct that his name be removed from the list of attorneys permitted to practice law. Notice of the petition was given by the Clerk of this Court to Mr. Salamo at 2426 "East" 23rd Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11234 and Mr. Salamo has filed a response admitting that on March 11, 1992, the Honorable Jim Gunter, serving on exchange to the Washington Circuit Court, entered an order finding Michael Salamo guilty of professional misconduct and barring Mr. Salamo from practicing law in the courts of this State. [1] It appearing that the order of March 11, 1992, is now final, no appeal having been taken, the petition of the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct should be, and the same is hereby, granted.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.