§ 91.4. Appeal of challenges to subpoenas.

 Enforcement Rule 213(g) provides that:

   (1)  Either Disciplinary Counsel or a respondent-attorney may petition the Supreme Court to enforce a subpoena or to review a determination under §  91.3 (relating to determination of validity of subpoena) on the validity of a subpoena, and no attack on the validity of a subpoena will be considered by the Court unless previously raised as provided in §  91.3. See also §  91.151(e) (relating to contempt of the Board).

   Official Note

   The reference to §  91.151(e) is intended to make clear that, where the person who is resisting complying with a subpoena is the respondent-attorney, the provisions of this rule are cumulative of those in §  91.151(e).

   (2)  Upon receipt of a petition for enforcement of a subpoena, the Court shall issue a rule to show cause upon the person to whom the subpoena is directed, returnable within ten days, why the person should not be held in contempt. If the period for response has passed without a response having been filed, or after consideration of any response, the Court shall issue an appropriate order.

   (3)  A petition for review of a determination made under §  91.3 must set forth in detail the grounds for challenging the determination. Upon timely receipt of a petition for review, the Court shall issue a rule to show cause upon the party to the proceeding who is not challenging the determination, returnable within ten days, why the determination should not be reversed. If the period for response has passed without a response having been filed, or after consideration of any response, the Court shall issue an appropriate order.

   The provisions of this §  91.4 amended November 14 and 17, 1989 and December 6 and 20, 1989, 20 Pa.B. 2009; amended June 11, 1993, effective immediately, 23 Pa.B. 2729; amended March 11, 2005, effective immediately, 35 Pa.B. 1656. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (198419).