DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
|
|
- Lorin Waters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of: : : NAVRON PONDS, : : D.C. App. No. 02-BG-659 Respondent. : Bar Docket Nos & : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia Court of Appeals : (Bar Registration No ) : SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE This matter returns to the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board ) on remand from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the Court ). In its order of remand, the Court directed the Board to transmit a supplemental report and recommendation on the proposed original discipline to be imposed pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 10 and D.C. Code (a) in light of Respondent s guilty plea to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203, and/or to recommend whether the Court should impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11, in light of discipline imposed against Respondent in Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York. Order, In re Ponds, No. 02-BG-659 (D.C. June 26, 2008). The discipline imposed in the three sister states stems from Respondent s criminal contempt conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the Maryland District Court ). On remand, the Board ordered Bar Counsel and Respondent to file briefs with the Board addressing the appropriate discipline in light of Respondent s convictions and/or whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. Bar Counsel filed a brief with the Board recommending reciprocal discipline of disbarment based on the action of the Maryland District Court and that the criminal
2 conviction matter based on Respondent s tax violations be dismissed as moot. Respondent has not filed a brief or response to the Board s order. For the reasons that follow, the Board agrees with Bar Counsel and recommends that the Court disbar Respondent as reciprocal discipline and that it dismiss the criminal conviction matter as moot. I. BACKGROUND Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on March 12, Respondent was also admitted to the Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania bars and admitted to practice before the Maryland District Court and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the D.C. District Court ). A. Proceedings Related to Respondent s Conviction for Criminal Contempt On April 9, 2002, Respondent was convicted in the Maryland District Court of the offense of criminal contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 401(1). On June 13, 2002, Bar Counsel notified the Court of the conviction and submitted a proposed order of interim suspension pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 10(c). On or about June 28, 2002, Respondent filed a letter with the Court opposing the interim suspension, and on July 8, 2002, the Court issued an order requiring Respondent to show cause as to why he should not be suspended pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 10(c). Upon learning that on August 22, 2002, the Maryland District Court disbarred Respondent on default based on his contempt conviction, the Court, by order of September 3, 2002, discharged its July 8 order to show cause, suspended Respondent on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(d), and referred the Maryland District Court s disbarment order to the Board for a determination whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. On September 18, 2002, Respondent moved the Court for a stay of the order of interim suspension on the ground that he had moved the Maryland District Court to 2
3 vacate the disbarment order. The Court denied the stay on October 8, 2002, without prejudice to reapplying if the order was vacated. On November 26, 2003, the Chief Judge of the Maryland District Court ratified the disbarment order. Before the Board, Bar Counsel recommended the imposition of the identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment. Respondent did not file a response to Bar Counsel s statement. On November 7, 2003, the Board filed a report recommending disbarment as identical reciprocal discipline. Respondent did not file an exception to the Board s report. Bar Counsel reports that as a result of his disbarment by the Maryland District Court, Respondent was reciprocally disbarred by the D.C. District Court on June 2, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Maryland on January 29, 2004, and the Supreme Court of New York on August 13, Further, on August 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania disbarred Respondent as identical reciprocal discipline to his disbarment by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Respondent also was suspended by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit ), which referred the matter to its Committee on Admissions and Grievances, where it remains pending on the Committee s recommendation for disbarment. B. Proceedings Related to Respondent s Criminal Tax Convictions On December 10, 2002, Respondent was indicted by a grand jury in the D.C. District Court on seven felony counts, including five counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201, one count of felony fraud in the first degree for failure to pay District of Columbia taxes and concealing income and assets, in violation of D.C. Code (a) and (a)(1), and one count of wire fraud by a scheme to defraud the United States and the District of Columbia by concealing income and assets, in violation of 18 U.S.C United States v. Ponds, D.D.C. No. 02-cr-495. Respondent also was charged by information with five misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file 3
4 a tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C United States v. Ponds, D.D.C. No. 03-cr-283. On July 16, 2003, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts in the indictment and information, and on October 30, 2003, Respondent was sentenced. On October 31, 2003, the D.C. District Court vacated the misdemeanor convictions for violation of 26 U.S.C based on the parties agreement and in light of Respondent s felony tax convictions on the same events. On December 2, 2003, Bar Counsel notified the Court of Respondent s criminal tax and fraud convictions. On May 25, 2004, the Court ordered the reciprocal discipline matter based on the Maryland District Court s order of disbarment stayed pending Respondent s appeal of his convictions, noting that they would constitute crimes of moral turpitude if affirmed. The Court directed the parties to notify it when the appeal was resolved. In a statement filed on October 4, 2007, Bar Counsel notified the Court that on July 14, 2006, the D.C. Circuit reversed the judgment of conviction in the tax and fraud case and remanded it to the D.C. District Court. See United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Bar Counsel further informed the Court that on remand, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203, and on May 22, 2007, he was sentenced to concurrent 36-month terms of probation. Bar Counsel asked the Court to lift its May 25, 2004, order staying the reciprocal discipline matter and to enter an order of disbarment based on the Board s report of November 7, By order of October 25, 2007, the Court vacated the stay of May 25, 2004, and assigned the matter to the merits division. On June 26, 2008, the Court remanded the matter to the Board to transmit a supplemental report and recommendation on the proposed original discipline to be imposed pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 10 and D.C. Code , in light of Respondent s guilty plea to the misdemeanor violations of 26 U.S.C and/or to recommend whether the Court 4
5 should impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11, in light of the orders of disbarment entered in Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York, based on his conviction for criminal contempt. 1 II. ANALYSIS The Board, having reviewed the entire record referred to it by the Court, adheres to its original recommendation that the Court should impose reciprocal discipline of disbarment, based on the order of disbarment entered by the Maryland District Court. We further recommend that the proceeding based on Respondent s conviction of two counts of willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C be dismissed as moot. Respondent did not make a submission to the Board on remand contesting the imposition of reciprocal discipline or in the proceedings that resulted in the Board s initial recommendation of disbarment. The Board s role thus is limited, as it was when the Board first considered this matter, to reviewing the foreign proceeding sufficiently to satisfy itself that no obvious miscarriage of justice would result in the imposition of identical discipline.... In re Childress, 811 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1265 (D.C. 1998)). Under this standard, the imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic, with minimum review by both the Board and this court. In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam). In accordance with our limited role, we have examined the record and find nothing that rises to the level of an obvious miscarriage of justice. The criminal contempt conviction on which the order of disbarment is based has not been reversed or vacated and stands as a valid conviction. As we explained in our earlier report, the record of the contempt trial clearly establishes conduct that 1 The Court had earlier denied Bar Counsel s motion of April 27, 2006, to lift the stay and to consider the matter based on the Board s November 7, 2003 report, and its August 3, 2006, motion for reconsideration. 5
6 would constitute misconduct in the District of Columbia in violation of Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice), and that disbarment is within the range of sanctions that would be imposed in the District of Columbia. We thus recommend that the Court impose identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment for the reasons set forth in our November 7, 2003 report, which we attach and incorporate by reference. 2 We would ordinarily refer Respondent s convictions of two counts of willful failure to file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C to a Hearing Committee for a moral turpitude determination under D.C. Code (a), because they are misdemeanors. See In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626, 629 (D.C. 1992) (en banc). If the Court imposes reciprocal discipline of disbarment, however, it may dismiss the criminal conviction matter as moot. See, e.g., In re Wittenberg, 941 A.2d 444, 446 (D.C. 2008) (per curiam) (disbarring the respondent as reciprocal discipline and dismissing related criminal matter as moot); In re Rostoker, 918 A.2d 425, 426 (D.C. 2007) (same). Accordingly, we recommend that the Court impose reciprocal discipline of disbarment and dismiss the criminal conviction matter based on the misdemeanor violations of 26 U.S.C as moot. 2 The orders of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of New York and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania referred by the Court to the Board are orders of reciprocal discipline. Because reciprocal discipline is based on discipline imposed by the original disciplining court and not on an order of reciprocal discipline for the same conduct, our reciprocal discipline recommendation is based on the Maryland District Court s order of disbarment only. See In re Harris-Smith, 871 A.2d 1183, 1184 n.3. (D.C. 2005) (per curiam); In re Webb, 766 A.2d 564, 565 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam). 6
7 III. CONCLUSION The Board recommends that the Court disbar Respondent as identical reciprocal discipline to the order of disbarment imposed by the Maryland District Court. The Board further recommends that the Court dismiss the criminal matter based on Respondent s misdemeanor violations of 26 U.S.C as moot. Respondent s disbarment should be deemed to run, for purposes of reinstatement, from the date Respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, (D.C. 1994). 3 Dated: December 29, 2008 By: /CJB/ Charles J. Willoughby All members of the Board concur in this Supplemental Report and Recommendation except Ms. Coghill-Howard, who did not participate. 3 Respondent filed an Affidavit of Compliance with Section 14 of Rule XI on September 19, 2007, and Bar Counsel filed a Notice of Noncompliance on October 4, 2007, because the affidavit was untimely and lacked both particularity and supporting proof. Since that time, Respondent has failed to correct the deficiencies in the affidavit. 7
8 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of: ) ) NAVRON PONDS, ) Bar Docket No ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE Respondent has been a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia since March 12, Until recently, he was also a member of the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ( Maryland District Court ). On April 9, 2002, Respondent was convicted in the Maryland District Court of the offense of criminal contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 401(1). Subsequent to that conviction, the Maryland District Court issued an order to show cause to Respondent, directing him to explain why he should not be disbarred from that court based on his conviction. Respondent made no response to that order to show cause within the required time, a default for which he claims good cause. In any event, the Maryland District Court, taking note of Respondent s default in the face of the order to show cause, ordered him disbarred from that court on August 22, Respondent has moved to vacate the Maryland District Court s disbarment order, but thus far that court has taken no action on his motion. Conceivably either Respondent s criminal conviction or his disbarment from the Maryland District Court could form the basis for discipline in this jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, after learning of Respondent s disbarment by the Maryland District Court, entered its customary interim suspension order pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(d), and referred the Maryland District Court s disbarment order to this Board for a determination whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. Respondent moved in the Court of Appeals for a stay of that interim suspension order on the ground that he had moved in the Maryland District Court for
9 vacatur of the disbarment order, but the Court of Appeals denied that stay, without prejudice to his reapplying should the disbarment order be vacated. As noted above, Respondent has applied to the Maryland District Court for vacatur but no action has been taken. In the meantime, Respondent has not made any submission to this Board contending that reciprocal discipline would be inappropriate if the Maryland District Court s disbarment order stands. We therefore find that it is appropriate to review this case under the restricted scope of review required by cases such as In re Childress, 811 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C. 2002), In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1228 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam), and In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, (D.C. 1998), and we conclude that Respondent should receive identical reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. It is unlikely, in any event, that a more searching review of the case would yield a different result. 1 1 Because Respondent s disbarment in the Maryland District Court was imposed by default, there are two additional issues that must be addressed. First, reciprocal discipline is appropriate even when the discipline in the original jurisdiction is imposed by default, so long as the respondent has had notice of the disciplinary proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction. See In re Ryan, Bar Docket No (BPR July 29, 2002) (respondent disbarred as identical reciprocal discipline where foreign discipline was imposed by default), aff d, 816 A.2d 810 (D.C. 2003) (per curiam). Respondent received notice of the Order to Show Cause. He acknowledged his awareness of the Order to Show Cause in his motion to stay the interim suspension filed in the Court of Appeals. Second, it does not appear that the Maryland District Court formally made the transcript of the underlying criminal contempt trial a part of the record in the disbarment proceedings. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Maryland District Court relied on the findings in the contempt trial to justify Respondent s disbarment. Immediately after reciting the fact of Respondent s conviction, the Order to Show Cause states: It is therefore ORDERED... that Respondent be and hereby is, immediately suspended from the practice of law before this Court, and it is further ORDERED that Respondent show cause...why the imposition of disbarment by this Court would not be warranted. Order to Show Cause, Statement of Bar Counsel Attach. 2 (emphasis added). The Maryland District Court therefore made clear that the order to show cause resulted directly from the outcome of the contempt trial. The final disbarment order also directly connects the contempt conviction and the imposition of discipline. In addition, in this case we look to the underlying criminal contempt trial solely to determine whether the discipline imposed in the original jurisdiction has evidentiary support and therefore should be followed in this jurisdiction (as should be presumptively the case under Childress), not whether this jurisdiction should depart upward from the discipline imposed in the original jurisdiction. This case is therefore not like In re Maxwell, 798 A.2d 525 (D.C. 2002), in which the Court of Appeals held that, when the Board recommends greater reciprocal discipline, we may not rely on findings not drawn from the original disciplinary proceeding, at least where those findings are not referenced in and did not become a basis for the discipline imposed in the original jurisdiction. Id. at 529. Here, the Board is not recommending greater reciprocal discipline, and is relying on findings that were, in effect, the basis of the discipline in the original jurisdiction. 2
10 We do not find any basis for concluding that a miscarriage of justice would result if Respondent were to be disbarred here. There is a strong presumption that identical reciprocal discipline should be imposed, unless the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that one of the exceptions set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c), is applicable. See In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992). None of the exceptions applies here. Respondent received due process in the form of an order to show cause to which he failed to respond. Nor is there any infirmity of proof. The only arguable difficulty is that the Maryland District Court s order to show cause and disbarment order do not specifically recite the rationale for Respondent s discipline, except to note that the disbarment is based on the conviction for criminal contempt. But that conviction followed a full trial, and as we now explain, the record of that trial (at which Respondent was convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt) amply provides a justification for discipline, including disbarment. The Maryland District Court found, in its capacity as trier of fact, that Respondent assisted a client in a criminal case in concealing the extent of his assets from the prosecution and the court. The court found that Respondent accepted an expensive and extraordinary Mercedes from a client in a criminal case as a retainer, that the automobile represented the proceeds of illicit drug sales of narcotics and therefore was subject to forfeiture, that Respondent assisted his client in preparing a false financial document for submission to the court by failing to include the Mercedes on a list of the client s assets, that Respondent by remaining silent effectively concealed the existence of the car from the court, and that he concealed the existence of the car not out a desire to protect his client s constitutional rights but simply out of a desire to keep the car. See Transcript of trial hearing on January 4, 2002 ( Tr. IV ) at 105, , Statement of Bar Counsel Attach. 3. This conduct on Respondent s part would clearly constitute misconduct subject to discipline in the District of Columbia. At a minimum it constitutes dishonest conduct, 3
11 in violation of Rule 8.4(c), and conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d). We find no reason to question that disbarment would be within the applicable range of disciplinary sanctions for such conduct. The Court of Appeals has stated many times that [h]onesty is basic to the practice of law, In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226, 231 (D.C. 1986) (en banc), and we have similarly made clear that [d]ishonesty in lawyer s dealings with tribunals will not be tolerated, and we will endeavor to stamp out such behavior. In re Owens, Bar Docket No. 2-00, at 11 (BPR July 12, 2002), aff d, 806 A.2d 1230 (2002) (per curiam). Documents, moreover, are the lawyer s stock in trade, and special care must be taken to ensure scrupulous honesty in the submission of documents to a court. See In re Schneider, 553 A.2d 206, 209 (D.C. 1989). Cases involving the submission of fraudulent or false documents may warrant a sanction at the high end of the range, up to and including disbarment. See In re Gil, 656 A.2d 303 (D.C. 1995); In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458 (D.C. 1994) (per curiam). Accordingly, we recommend that Respondent be disbarred. Respondent s affidavit should be deemed to run for purposes of reinstatement from the date Respondent files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, (D.C. 1994). By: /PRQW/ Paul R.Q. Wolfson Dated: November 7, 2003 All members of the Board join in this Report and Recommendation, except Mr. Baach, who did not participate. 4
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : RONALD ALLEN BROWN, : : Respondent. : D.C. App. No. 07-BG-81 : Bar Docket No. 476-06 : A Member of the Bar
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : : : : : : : : : :
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of Respondent. RICHARD G. CERVIZZI, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : BURMAN A. BERGER, : : D.C. App. No. 05-BG-1054 Respondent. : Bar Docket Nos. 326-05 & 278-04 : A Member
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) JOHN C. HARDWICK, JR., ) Bar Docket No. 370-01 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : MICHAEL D. ROSTOKER, : : Bar Docket No. 397-04 Respondent. : D.C. App. No. 04-BG-1388 : A Member of the
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of CELICIA HOOVER-HANKERSON, Respondent. Bar Docket No. 195-03 A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL C. MEISLER, ) Bar Docket No. 414-98 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : ROBERT M. SILVERMAN : Bar Docket No. 145-02 D.C. Bar No. 162610, : : Respondent. : ORDER OF THE BOARD ON
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : JOHN O. IWEANOGE, JR., : : D.C. App. No. 06-BG-1079 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 343-06 : A Member of the
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : ANTOINE I. MANN, ESQUIRE, : : DCCA No. 03-BG-1138 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 200-00 : A Member of the
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) TODD A. SHEIN, ) Bar Docket No. 453-02 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : HOWARD R. SHMUCKLER, : : Respondent. : Bar Docket Nos. 81-07 & 244-07 : A Member of the Bar of the : District
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : In the Matter of: : : JONATHAN T. ZACKEY, : Bar Docket No. 351-01 : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : In the Matter of: : : JOEL STEINBERG, : Bar Docket No. 009-02 : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) BRADFORD J. BARNEYS, ) ) Bar Docket No. 34-99 Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : PATRICK E. BAILEY, : : DCCA No. 05-BG-842 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 220-05 : A Member of the Bar of the
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : DARRELL N. FULLER, : D.C. App. No. 13-BG-757 : Board Docket No. 13-BD-064 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 2013-D235
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : SCOTT L. WISS, : : Respondent. : Bar Docket Nos. 369-04 & 327-05 : A Member of the Bar of the : District
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 07-BG-254 and 07-BG Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar No.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationPeople v. Evanson. 08PDJ082. August 4, Attorney Regulation. Following a default sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P (b), the Presiding
People v. Evanson. 08PDJ082. August 4, 2009. Attorney Regulation. Following a default sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5(b), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Dennis Blaine Evanson (Attorney
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) STEVEN E. MIRSKY, ) Bar Docket No. 342-02 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) PAUL DRAGER, ) ) ) Respondent. ) Bar Docket Nos. 278-01 & 508-02 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 05-BG Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar No.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : MARK S. GUBERMAN, : : Respondent. : D.C. App. No. 06-BG-1058 : Bar Docket No. 311-06 A Member of the Bar
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : KIM E. HALLMARK, : : Respondent. : D.C. App. No. 03-BG-762 : Bar Docket No. 489-02 A Suspended Member of
More information[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 97-BG-1979 & 97-BG Members of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG No. 23. September Term, 2009 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND BARRY KENT DOWNEY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 23 September Term, 2009 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. BARRY KENT DOWNEY Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE : In the Matter of: : : MAQSOOD HAMID MIR, : : Respondent : D.C. App. No. 05-BG-553 : Bar Docket No.
More informationS17Y1329. IN THE MATTER OF RICKY W. MORRIS, JR. seeking the disbarment of Ricky W. Morris, Jr. (State Bar No ), based
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: January 29, 2018 S17Y1329. IN THE MATTER OF RICKY W. MORRIS, JR. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on a Notice of Discipline seeking the
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : MARIA C. MENDOZA, : : Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 036-02 : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-2286 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. LOUIS RANDOLF TOWNSEND, JR., Respondent. [April 24, 2014] PER CURIAM. We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent
More informationPeople v. David William Beale. 16PDJ066. February 9, 2017.
People v. David William Beale. 16PDJ066. February 9, 2017. After a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David William Beale (attorney registration number 19097) from the practice
More informationNO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
9/21/01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Charles
More informationALABAMA PRIVATE INVESTIGATION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 741-X-6 DISCIPLINARY ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALABAMA PRIVATE INVESTIGATION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 741-X-6 DISCIPLINARY ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 741-X-6-.01 741-X-6-.02 741-X-6-.03 741-X-6-.04 741-X-6-.05 741-X-6-.06 741-X-6-.07 741-X-6-.08
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-10-2013 USA v. John Purcell Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1982 Follow this and additional
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
09/18/2015 "See News Release 045 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015-B-1208 IN RE: DOUGLAS KENT HALL ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANSWER BRIEF
THE FLORIDA BAR, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA v. Complainant, HERMAN THOMAS, Case No. SC11-925 TFB File No. 2009-00,804(2B) Respondent. / ANSWER BRIEF Allison Carden Sackett, Bar Counsel The Florida
More informationREINSTATEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE. To facilitate the processing of Petitions for Reinstatement to practice law the
REINSTATEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE To facilitate the processing of Petitions for Reinstatement to practice law the petitioner shall complete this questionnaire understanding that complete and accurate answers
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-114 PER CURIAM. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. JONATHAN ISAAC ROTSTEIN, Respondent. [November 7, 2002] We have for review a referee s report regarding alleged ethical
More information107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1 2 3 RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association reaffirms the black letter of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions as adopted February, 1986, and amended February 1992,
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ZAPOR. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769.] Attorneys Misconduct
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Before a Referee
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Before a Referee THE FLORIDA BAR, V. Complainant, JOHN R. FORBES, Case No. 76,451 TFB File No. 91-00030-04B Respondent. REPORT OF THE REFEREE I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Pursuant
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : DAVID ABRAHAMSON, : Bar Docket No. 201-01 : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationS17Y1439. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID R. SICAY-PERROW. Following this Court s remand of this reciprocal disciplinary matter, see
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 30, 2017 S17Y1439. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID R. SICAY-PERROW. PER CURIAM. Following this Court s remand of this reciprocal disciplinary matter, see In the Matter
More information[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.]
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.] TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KAFANTARIS. [Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-Ohio-1389.]
More informationAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS Definitions Adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 238 n 1 (2000) Injury is harm to a
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,097. In the Matter of TIMOTHY CLARK MEYER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,097 In the Matter of TIMOTHY CLARK MEYER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 18,
More information) No. SB D RICHARD E. CLARK, ) ) No Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O N REVIEW FROM DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
In the Matter of SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RICHARD E. CLARK, ) Attorney No. 9052 ) ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. SB-03-0113-D ) Disciplinary Commission ) No. 00-1066 Respondent. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE In the Matter of: : : TERRI Y. LEA, : : D.C. App. No. 08-BG-964 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 323-07 :
More informationS19Y0028. IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, JR. This is the second appearance of this matter before this Court. In our first
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: January 7, 2019 S19Y0028. IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL WILLIAMS, JR. PER CURIAM. This is the second appearance of this matter before this Court. In our first opinion,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant. v. GARY MARK MILLS, Respondent. / Supreme Court Case No. SC08-833 The Florida Bar File Nos. 2008-51,528(15C)(FFC) 2008-50,724(17A)
More informationENFORCEMENT RULES & DISCIPLINARY BOARD RULES RELATING TO REINSTATEMENT
ENFORCEMENT RULES & DISCIPLINARY BOARD RULES RELATING TO REINSTATEMENT PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT (Contains Amendments Through July 14, 2011) Rule 218. Reinstatement. (a) An attorney
More informationS17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports filed by
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: September 13, 2017 S17Y1499, S17Y1502, S17Y1623. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY SYLVESTER KERR. PER CURIAM. These disciplinary matters are before the court on the reports
More informationPeople v. Crews, 05PDJ049. March 6, Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent
People v. Crews, 05PDJ049. March 6, 2006. Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Respondent Richard A. Crews (Attorney Registration No. 32472) from
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY : : : : : : : : :
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: Respondent. LATHAL PONDER, JR., A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar
More informationBEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL : No. 756, Disciplinary Docket : No. 3 Supreme Court Petitioner : : No. 98 DB 2002 Disciplinary Board v.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC14-2049 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. CYRUS A. BISCHOFF, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] We have for review a referee s report recommending that Respondent, Cyrus
More informationS14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 6, 2014 S14Y0692. IN THE MATTER OF LAXAVIER P. REDDICK-HOOD. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
^kzm BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In re: /rxy. ^f, Uy ^.. 4 Complaint against Case No. 2013-070 ^ Anthony Orlando Calabrese III Attorney Reg.
More informationDocket No. 26,646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 August 16, 2001, Filed
1 IN RE QUINTANA, 2001-NMSC-021, 130 N.M. 627, 29 P.3d 527 In the Matter of ORLANDO A. QUINTANA, ESQUIRE, An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico Docket No. 26,646
More informationDocket No. 29,313 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMSC-012, 139 N.M. 266, 131 P.3d 653 March 28, 2006, Filed
1 IN RE MIKUS, 2006-NMSC-012, 139 N.M. 266, 131 P.3d 653 IN THE MATTER OF RONALD D. MIKUS An Attorney Licensed to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico Docket No. 29,313 SUPREME COURT OF
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : ROBERT L. REHBERGER, : : Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 88-98 : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,542. In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,542 In the Matter of BENJAMIN N. CASAD, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE conditions. Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed June
More informationOpinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board Members Helen R. Stone and Paul Willumstad, both members of the bar.
People v. Corbin, No. 02PDJ039, 11.20.03. Attorney Regulation. The Hearing Board disbarred Respondent Charles C. Corbin, attorney registration number 16382, following a sanctions hearing in this default
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More informationCHAPTER 20 FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 20-1 PREAMBLE RULE PURPOSE
CHAPTER 20 FLORIDA REGISTERED PARALEGAL PROGRAM SUBCHAPTER 20-1 PREAMBLE RULE 20-1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to set forth a definition that must be met in order to use the title paralegal,
More informationIs admission of the truth of (or of an inability to successfully defend against) the allegations required? Arkansas Yes No California Yes No
May an attorney resign with charges pending? Is admission of the truth of (or of an inability to successfully defend against) the allegations required? Arkansas Yes No California Yes No Connecticut Yes
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. WILLIAM E. BUCHKO, Respondent No. 1695 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 255 DB 2010 Attorney Registration No. 26033 (Beaver
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1
Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be
More informationPeople v. Bill Condon. 16PDJ050. December 23, 2016.
People v. Bill Condon. 16PDJ050. December 23, 2016. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Bill Condon (attorney registration number 11924) from the practice of law for
More informationUSA v. David McCloskey
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-8-2015 USA v. David McCloskey Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationThe District Volunteer Coordinator shall notify any volunteer who is not approved for volunteer service based on their criminal history record.
North East ISD015910 COMMUNITY RELATIONS: SCHOOL PROGRAM GKG(R) PURPOSE Recognizing the increasingly important role that volunteers play in education as they help to promote school/community partnership
More informationPeople v. Mascarenas. 11PDJ008. September 27, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Steven J. Mascarenas (Attorney
People v. Mascarenas. 11PDJ008. September 27, 2011. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Steven J. Mascarenas (Attorney Registration Number 15612). Mascarenas engaged in an elaborate
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ORDER
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ORDER Pursuant to Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 51, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire adopts
More informationS12Y1781. IN THE MATTER OF SIDNEY JOE JONES. In 2011, Sidney Joe Jones (State Bar No ) was convicted of
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 3, 2013 S12Y1781. IN THE MATTER OF SIDNEY JOE JONES. PER CURIAM. 1 In 2011, Sidney Joe Jones (State Bar No. 734128) was convicted of eleven misdemeanors, including
More informationUSA v. Kheirallah Ahmad
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-28-2009 USA v. Kheirallah Ahmad Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1374 Follow this and
More informationDISTRICT of COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE HEARING COMMITTEE REPORT INTRODUCTION
DISTRICT of COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE : In the Matter of : : TAMLA T. SCOTT, : Respondent, : Bar Docket No. 135-07 : Member of the Bar of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc In re: BYRON G. STEWART, RESPONDENT. No. SC91370 ORIGINAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING Opinion issued June 28, 2011 Attorney Byron Stewart pleaded guilty to his fourth charge
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG-800. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of JOHN J. HARKINS, Respondent. Bar Docket No. 525-02 A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AD HOC HEARING COMMITTEE In the Matter of: : : DENNIS P. CLARKE, : : Board Docket No. 11-ND-002 Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 334-06
More informationRule Change #2000(20)
Rule Change #2000(20) The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 20. Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Attorney Discipline and Disability Proceedings, Colorado Attorneys Fund for Client Protection,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-17-2005 USA v. Waalee Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2178 Follow this and additional
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 07-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationPeople v. Leland Thomas Kintzele Jr. 15PDJ041. August 25, 2017.
People v. Leland Thomas Kintzele Jr. 15PDJ041. August 25, 2017. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Leland Thomas Kintzele Jr. (attorney registration number 06389),
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. No. SC Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos ,011(17B) AMENDED REPORT OF REFEREE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Supreme Court Case No. SC08-1210 Complainant, The Florida Bar File v. Nos. 2007-50,011(17B) 2007-51,629(17B) JANE MARIE LETWIN, Respondent. / AMENDED REPORT
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission v. Ronnie Thaxton, Misc. Docket AG No. 53, September Term, ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Ronnie Thaxton, Misc. Docket AG No. 53, September Term, 2009. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE An indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : GREGORY HAWN, : : Respondent. : Bar Docket No. 258-05 : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia
More informationSUBCHAPTER 1B - DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY RULES SECTION DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY OF ATTORNEYS
SUBCHAPTER 1B - DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY RULES SECTION.0100 - DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY OF ATTORNEYS 27 NCAC 01B.0101 GENERAL PROVISIONS Discipline for misconduct is not intended as punishment for wrongdoing
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. The Florida Bar File No ,230(17H) THE FLORIDA BAR S ANSWER BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, Supreme Court Case No. SC04-1595 v. The Florida Bar File No. 2003-50,230(17H) RICHARD PHILLIP GREENE, Respondent. / THE FLORIDA BAR S ANSWER
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-BG A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No Disciplinary Docket No_ 3 Petitioner : No.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1446 Disciplinary Docket No_ 3 Petitioner : No. 145 DB 2007 V. : Attorney Registration No. 35596 ANTHONY DENNIS JACKSON, Respondent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE at CHATTANOOGA ) ) ) In re: ) Case No. 1:08-MC-9 HERBERT S. MONCIER, ESQ. ) BPR No. 1910 ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier ) ) MEMORANDUM & ORDER
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALKER. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] Attorney misconduct
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46 (1:01CR45 & 3:01CR11-3)
Greer v. USA Doc. 19 Case 1:04-cv-00046-LHT Document 19 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC87538 PER CURIAM. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. LIJYASU MAHOMET KANDEKORE, Respondent. [June 1, 2000] We have for review the report of the referee recommending that disciplinary
More informationTHE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Effective 1 January 2019 Table of Contents I. General... 1 Rule 1. Courts of Criminal Appeals... 1 Rule 2. Scope of Rules; Title...
More information