Skip to main content
D. Connecticut· 2/17/1994

In Re Peterson

Citations

  • 163 B.R. 665
  • 1994 WL 46501

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting the distinction between the right to practice in a court and the right to practice law generally
  • attorney admitted in federal court in Connecticut could not maintain his sole office in that state and hold himself out to residents- of Connecticut as a practitioner in bankruptcy law
  • attorney admitted in federal court in Connecticut could not maintain his sole office in that state and hold himself out to residents of Connecticut as a practitioner in bankruptcy law
  • “The flaw in that argument is that it fails to recognize the distinction between the right to practice in a court and the right to practice law generally.”
  • right to practice law does not derive from federal court rules
  • attorney admitted in federal district court in Connecticut but not admitted to practice in state of Connecticut could not maintain his sole office in Connecticut and hold himself out to residents of Connecticut as a practitioner in bankruptcy law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alan H.W. Shiff

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

61 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.