DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
|
|
- Daniella McCormick
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) TODD A. SHEIN, ) Bar Docket No ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY This matter comes before the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) as a result of discipline imposed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the Maryland Court ). Respondent has been a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the Court ) since December 27, 1989, when he was admitted by motion. He was admitted to the Bar of the Maryland Court on June 14, On July 12, 2002, Respondent was indefinitely suspended by order of the Maryland Court, based on a Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent ( Joint Petition ) filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent. Order, Attorney Grievance Comm n v. Shein, 802 A.2d 437 (Md. 2002). The order provides no minimum term of suspension. Bar Counsel reported Respondent s Maryland discipline to the Court, and on November 20, 2002, the Court ordered Respondent s temporary suspension in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this reciprocal proceeding pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(d). Order, In re Shein, No. 02-BG-1220 (D.C. Nov. 20, 2002). The Court directed the Board to recommend whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether the Board instead elects to proceed de novo. Bar Counsel recommends
2 identical discipline of indefinite suspension with a fitness requirement and the right to apply for reinstatement after Respondent is reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever occurs first. For the following reasons, the Board agrees with Bar Counsel and recommends that the Court impose identical reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension, with a fitness requirement and the right to apply for reinstatement after Respondent is reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever occurs first. The Maryland Proceeding At the time Respondent entered into the Joint Petition, four disciplinary matters were pending against him. In two of the four matters, charges had been filed; a hearing was held in one matter, but no hearing had been held in the other. The other two matters were under investigation by Maryland Bar Counsel; in both those matters, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland had directed Maryland Bar Counsel to file formal charges against Respondent, but they had not yet been filed at the time Respondent entered into the Joint Petition. The Joint Petition reports that in the first matter where formal charges were filed, Respondent was found, after a hearing 1 in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland before Judge DeLawrence Beard, to have violated Rules 1.4(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and 1 Bar Counsel included a copy of the opinion, Attorney Grievance Comm n of Maryland v. Shein, Misc. Petition No (Md. Cir. Ct. Mar. 26, 2002), as an attachment to her statement on reciprocal discipline. The opinion is referred to in the Joint Petition and the findings are not contested by Respondent. The Board therefore finds it is appropriate to consider the opinion as part of the record of this reciprocal discipline proceeding. Cf. In re Maxwell, 798 A.2d 525 (D.C. 2002) (Court found factual findings from civil trial to be insufficient proof in the reciprocal discipline proceeding where a joint petition, and not the civil trial findings, was the basis for the discipline imposed by the original disciplining court). 2
3 8.4(d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ( Maryland Rules ). 2 The Circuit Court found that Respondent failed to keep his client apprised of matters during the representation in a breach of contract matter and failed to respond to his client s numerous telephone calls pertaining to the status of his case and written inquiries pertaining to the return of his file; failed to give his client an appropriate statement for hours expended and services rendered; failed to promptly forward his client s file and failed to communicate with his client s new attorney in a professional manner; failed to respond to the several written requests made by Maryland Bar Counsel to respond to the allegations of failure to return his client s file; and failed to timely ascertain the location of his client s file and turn it over to his client s new attorney. 2 Maryland Rule 1.4(a) (Communication) states: A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Maryland Rule 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property) states: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. Maryland Rule 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation) states: Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. Maryland Rule 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters) states: An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. Maryland Rule 8.4(d) (Misconduct) states: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. 3
4 The Joint Petition states that in the second matter where formal charges were filed but no hearing was held, Respondent was charged with violating Maryland Rule 5.4(a) 3 by sharing fees with a non attorney. The Joint Petition also states that in the first matter under investigation, Respondent was alleged to have failed to handle an estate matter properly, including failing to keep his client apprised of the status of the case. It reports that in the second matter under investigation, Respondent was alleged to have commingled funds related to a limited partnership (in which he was a partner in his escrow account) and on occasion failed to maintain client funds in trust; Respondent was also alleged to have failed to monitor his staff relative to his staff signing his associate s signature to documents without the associate s knowledge or permission, as well as his staff notarizing documents subsequent to having the signer present. In the Joint Petition, Respondent states that he is aware that an investigation is currently pending involving allegations of his professional misconduct and he knows that if a hearing were to be held, sufficient evidence could be produced to sustain the allegation of misconduct. The Joint Petition does not specify the investigation to which Respondent refers. Reciprocal Discipline D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(f)(2) establishes a presumption in favor of the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline, which is rebuttable if the respondent demonstrates by clear and 3 Maryland Rule 5.4(a) (Professional Independence of a Lawyer) provides, in pertinent part, that A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer, except that: (1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer s firm, partner, or associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the lawyer s death, to the lawyer s estate or to one or more specified persons; (2) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a lawyer who is deceased or disabled or who has disappeared may pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.17, pay the purchase price to the estate or representative of the lawyer; (3) a lawyer who undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer may pay to the estate of the deceased lawyer that proportion of the total compensation which fairly represents the services rendered by the deceased lawyer; and (4) a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profitsharing arrangement. 4
5 convincing evidence, or the Court finds on the face of the record by clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the five exceptions set out in D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c) exists. 4 See D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c) & (f); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992). When a respondent does not contest reciprocal discipline, however, the role of the Board is limited: [t]he most the Board should consider itself obligated to do... is to review the foreign proceeding sufficiently to satisfy itself that no obvious miscarriage of justice would result in the imposition of identical discipline a situation that we anticipate would rarely, if ever, present itself. In re Childress, 811 A.2d 805, 807 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1265 (D.C. 1998)). Further, the Court reiterated in In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam), that in such circumstances, the imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic, with minimum review by both the Board and this court. The Court has explained that [u]nderlying that principle is a general reluctance by the court to have the disciplinary law of the District of Columbia concerning both misconduct and sanctions developed in proceedings that are characterized by deference to another jurisdiction s judgment and also by the absence of that clear concreteness provided when a question emerges... for a decision from a clash of adversary argument. Childress, 811 A.2d at 807 (quoting In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, n.5 (D.C. 1995)). 4 The five exceptions under D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c) are as follows: (1) The procedure elsewhere was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or (2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistently with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or (3) The imposition of the same discipline by the Court would result in grave injustice; or (4) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia; or (5) The misconduct elsewhere does not constitute misconduct in the District of Columbia. 5
6 In the instant case, Respondent agreed to an indefinite suspension and does not contest the imposition of reciprocal discipline. In accordance with our limited role in such situations, we have examined the record and, finding nothing that rises to the level of an obvious miscarriage of justice, we recommend the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension, with the right to apply for reinstatement after Respondent is reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever occurs earlier. First, there is no evidence that Respondent was denied due process by the Maryland Court or that there was an infirmity of proof; Respondent participated in the disciplinary process and consented to the discipline of an indefinite suspension. Because Respondent consented to discipline, the factual record in this matter provides only limited information regarding Respondent s misconduct; the Board therefore is unable to evaluate whether Respondent s misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in this jurisdiction. In cases where the original disciplining court has developed no factual record, the Court has imposed indefinite suspension with the right to apply for reinstatement after being reinstated in the original jurisdiction or after five years, whichever comes first, as identical reciprocal discipline. See In re Slattery, 766 A.2d 561 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam); In re Blades, 766 A.2d 560 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam); In re Anagnostiadis, 765 A.2d 548 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam); see also In re Zdravkovich, No. 01-BG-96 (D.C. Sept. 11, 2003). In Zdravkovich, the Court suggested that the Board consider adopting a uniform policy of imposing identical reciprocal discipline in cases where the original disciplining court has imposed an indefinite suspension with no minimum term of suspension and after conducting a 6
7 full evidentiary hearing. 5 See Zdravkovich, No. 01-BG-96, slip op. at 12. In this case, there is a limited factual record of the misconduct from Maryland, based on the opinion following the hearing before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The Joint Petition also states the charges pending against Respondent or under investigation and contains Respondent s acknowledgment that sufficient evidence could be produced to sustain the allegation of misconduct. However, the Joint Petition does not specify the allegations to which Respondent refers. Under these circumstances, where the record is less than complete, we believe it is appropriate to adopt the Court s approach in Zdravkovich regarding matters where there is no factual record. We therefore recommend an indefinite suspension with a fitness requirement and the right to apply for reinstatement after being reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever comes first, as identical reciprocal discipline. If Respondent is summarily reinstated in Maryland, Respondent may seek vacatur of the fitness requirement pursuant to Board Rule 8.7. See Zdravkovich, No. 01-BG-96, slip op. at (citing In re Atkinson, 785 A.2d 318, 321 (D.C. 2001) (per curiam) (Board report appended) and In re Berger, 737 A.2d 1033, (D.C. 1999)). We turn to the question of notice of these reciprocal proceedings. The record shows that Respondent received notice of the Maryland proceedings; Respondent participated in the process and consented to the discipline imposed. In this jurisdiction, Bar Counsel and the Board followed their normal practices of service of papers upon Respondent. Bar Counsel copied Respondent with her letter of November 6, 2002, to the Clerk of the Court providing a certified copy of the Maryland Court s order, sending the letter to Respondent s primary address listed with the District of Columbia Bar. On November 7, 2002, the Executive Attorney for the Board 5 The Court in Zdravkovich suggested alternatively that the Board could adopt a procedure deferring any determination of a fixed period of suspension until the time that the respondent applies for reinstatement. See Zdravkovich, No. 01-BG-96, slip op. at 13. 7
8 sent a letter to Respondent at his primary address, enclosing copies of pertinent portions of D.C. Bar R. XI and advising Respondent of the pendency of reciprocal discipline proceedings and his opportunity to respond to Bar Counsel s statement as to whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. That letter was returned marked Undeliverable as Addressed. On November 19, 2002, the Executive Attorney re-sent the November 7, 2002 letter to Respondent at both his primary and secondary addresses listed with the District of Columbia Bar. The letter sent to the primary address was returned marked Undeliverable as Addressed ; the letter sent to the secondary address was also returned. Copies of the Executive Attorney s additional letters to Bar Counsel informing her of the undeliverable mail, sent to Respondent at his addresses listed with the District of Columbia Bar, were returned as undeliverable. On February 3, 2003, the Executive Attorney sent Respondent another letter to a new address provided by Bar Counsel, which was obtained from Maryland Bar Counsel. This letter was not returned. The Court has found notice of pending reciprocal discipline proceedings mailed to a respondent s address of record with the District of Columbia Bar sufficient even where the mail is returned as undeliverable, where the respondent fails to report a foreign order of discipline to Bar Counsel, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(b), and fails to keep his address updated with the District of Columbia Bar, as required by D.C. Bar R. II, 2(1). See In re McGowan, 827 A.2d 31, 31 n.2 (D.C. 2003) (per curiam) (citing In re Smith, 812 A.2d 931, 932 (D.C. 2002) (per curiam) ( Because respondent failed to report his [discipline] to Bar Counsel as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(b), and failed to update his address with the D.C. Bar as required by D.C. Bar R. II, 2(1), we treat this reciprocal matter as one in which respondent had notice and did not respond. )). Given Respondent s failure to both report his discipline to Bar Counsel and to 8
9 update his addresses with the District of Columbia Bar, we find Respondent to have had notice of reciprocal proceedings in this matter. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the Court impose identical reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with a fitness requirement, with the right to apply for reinstatement after five years or upon reinstatement in Maryland, whichever occurs earlier. The suspension should be deemed to run, for purposes of reinstatement, from the time Respondent files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329 (D.C. 1994). BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY By: Dr. Kay T. Payne Dated: October 24, 2003 All members of the Board concur in this Report and Recommendation. 9
DISTRICT 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
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: : : 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: : : 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: : : 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: ) ) 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
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 : : : : : : : : : :
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: ) ) 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: : : 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 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 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. 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 informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of: : : NAVRON PONDS, : : D.C. App. No. 02-BG-659 Respondent. : Bar Docket Nos. 65-02 & 549-02 : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG NO. 14 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND SEAN W.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG NO. 14 SEPTEMBER TERM, 2005 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. SEAN W. BAKER Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia Greene JJ. Opinion
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. 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 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 informationAttorney Grievance Commission v. Mark Kotlarsky, Misc. Docket No. 30, September Term Opinion by Hotten, J.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mark Kotlarsky, Misc. Docket No. 30, September Term 2016. Opinion by Hotten, J. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS DISBARMENT Court of Appeals disbarred from practice of law
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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
2002 WI 32 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 02-0123-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dianna L. Brooks, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
More informationAttorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Uzoma C. Obi No. AG 11, September Term, 2005
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Uzoma C. Obi No. AG 11, September Term, 2005 Headnote: ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE Our goal in attorney disciplinary matters is to protect the public and the public
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 informationDISCIPLINARY PROCESS of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR
DISCIPLINARY PROCESS of the VIRGINIA STATE BAR Prepared by: Paul D. Georgiadis, Assistant Bar Counsel & Leslie T. Haley, Senior Ethics Counsel Edited and revised by Jane A. Fletcher, Deputy Intake Counsel
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: : : SHERRYL V.R.S. GOFFER, : AKA SHERRYL SNODGRASS CAFFEY, : D.C. App. No. 14-BG-5 : Board Docket No. 14-BD-002
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: JOSE W. VEGA NUMBER: 16-DB-093 16-DB-093 2/8/2018 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This attorney discipline matter arises out of formal
More informationThe Anatomy of a Complaint
The Anatomy of a Complaint Stanton A. Hazlett, Disciplinary Administrator The Kansas Disciplinary Administrator s Office Return to Green 2016 Friday, April 22, 2016 9:30 am - 4:00 pm Stinson Leonard Street
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AT RICHMOND IN THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT RULES, PART 6, IV, PARAGRAPH RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE PETITION
VIRGINIA: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AT RICHMOND IN THE MATTER OF SUPREME COURT RULES, PART 6, IV, PARAGRAPH 13-24 RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE PETITION TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE
More informationRules of Procedure TABLE OF CONTENTS
OSB Rules of Procedure (Revised 1/1/2018) 1 Rules of Procedure (As approved by the Supreme Court by order dated February 9, 1984 and as amended by Supreme Court orders dated April 18, 1984, May 31, 1984,
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
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 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 informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-035 8/14/2015 IN RE: KEISHA M. JONES-JOSEPH NUMBER: 14-DB-035 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT INTRODUCTION This is an attorney discipline matter
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket (Subtitle AG) No. 21. September Term, Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket (Subtitle AG) No. 21 September Term, 2006 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bonar Mayo Robertson Bell, C.J. Raker *Cathell Harrell Battaglia
More informationCHAPTER 16. FOREIGN LEGAL CONSULTANCY RULE RULE PURPOSE RULE GENERAL CERTIFICATION REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 16. FOREIGN LEGAL CONSULTANCY RULE RULE 16-1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to permit a person who is admitted to practice in a foreign country as an attorney, counselor at law, or the
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 informationORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
ORIGINAL LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: ROY JOSEPH RICHARD, JR. NUMBER: 14-DB-051 RECOMMENDATION TO THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT 14-DB-051 1/12/2016 INTRODUCTION This is a disciplinary matter
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 information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. STUBBS. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.] Attorneys Misconduct
More informationOpinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and Hearing Board members, Daniel A. Vigil and Mickey W. Smith, both members of the bar.
People v. Espinoza, No. 99PDJ085, 1/18/01. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board suspended Pamela Michelle Espinoza from the practice of law for a period of six months
More informationTuesday 28th November, 2006.
Tuesday 28th November, 2006. On November 10, 2005 came the Virginia State Bar, by Phillip V. Anderson, its President, and Thomas A. Edmonds, its Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer, and presented
More information: No Disciplinary Docket No. 3. No. 39 DB : Attorney Registration No : (Philadelphia) ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of : No. 1150 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 RONALD I. KAPLAN No. 39 DB 2005 : Attorney Registration No. 34822 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT : (Philadelphia)
More informationRules for Qualified & Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators
Part I. STANDARDS Rules 15.000 15.200 Part II. DISCIPLINE Rule 15.210. Procedure [No Change] Any complaint alleging violations of the Florida Rules For Qualified And Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators,
More informationJOINT ETHICS ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (JEEP) MANUAL OF PROCEDURES. December 2006
JOINT ETHICS ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (JEEP) MANUAL OF PROCEDURES December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: ETHICS ENFORCEMENT... 1 JOINT ETHICS ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (JEEP)... 2 THIS MANUAL... 3 DEFINITIONS...
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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Disciplinary Counsel, Relator, CASE NO. 2012-1107 vs. Joel David Joseph Respondent. RELATOR'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Jonathan E.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER PER CURIAM: AND Now, this 9th day of February, 2010, upon consideration of the Report and
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No_ 1556 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner : No. 135 DB 2008 V. : Attorney Registration No. 66420 ANDREW J. OSTROWSKI, Respondent
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,361. In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 117,361 In the Matter of LAWRENCE E. SCHNEIDER, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed November 9,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 18 1365 Filed November 9, 2018 IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD, ELECTRONICALLY FILED NOV 09, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Complainant, vs. DEREK T. MORAN,
More informationOFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST CERTIFIED MEDIATORS, MEDIATION TRAINERS, AND MEDIATOR MENTORS 1. GENERAL Adopted by the Judicial Council
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 informationBEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR. VSB Docket No , , , ORDER OF REVOCATION
VIRGINIA; BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN JAMES WALDRON VSB Docket No. 17-051-106968, 18-051-109817, 18-051-111305, 18-051-111321 ORDER OF REVOCATION THIS
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD 14-DB-042 3/1/2016 IN RE: LOUIS JEROME STANLEY NUMBER: 14-DB-042 RULING OF THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD INTRODUCTION This is an attorney disciplinary
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 informationAttorney Grievance: assisting suspended lawyer in engaging in unauthorized practice of law.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Eugene M. Brennan, Jr. Misc.Docket No. AG 39, Sept. Term, 1997 Attorney Grievance: assisting suspended lawyer in engaging in unauthorized practice of law. IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Case No. SC08-1747 [TFB Case Nos. 2008-30,285(09C); 2008-30,351(09C); 2008-30,387(09C); 2008-30,479(09C); 2008-30,887(09C)]
More informationPeople v. Michael Scott Collins. 14PDJ042. December 2, 2014.
People v. Michael Scott Collins. 14PDJ042. December 2, 2014. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Michael Scott Collins (Attorney Registration Number 27234) for three
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING October Term, A.D. 2016 In the Matter of Amendments to ) the Rules Governing the Commission on ) Judicial Conduct and Ethics ) ORDER AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING
More informationpublicly reprimanded in 1994 for violations of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 1.5(c) (failure
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 01-095 IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD B. GIRDLER AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Default ~ 1:20-4(f)] Decided: Oct:ober 16, 2001 To the Honorable
More informationFINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
People v. Wright, GC98C90. 5/04/99. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board disbarred respondent for his conduct while under suspension. Six counts in the complaint alleged
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
10/16/2017 "See News Release 049 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents." SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2017-B-1043 IN RE: MARK G. SIMMONS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING PER CURIAM This disciplinary matter
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) REPORT OF REFEREE. December 10, Thereafter, the Chief Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (Before a Referee) THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. KURT S. HARMON, Respondent. / Supreme Court Case No. SC08-2310 The Florida Bar File Nos. 2008-50,741(17A) 2008-51,596(17A)
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 information208.4 Inquiry Panel Review. applicant has established that he or she possesses the character and fitness necessary to practice law in
208.4 Inquiry Panel Review (6) Determination by Inquiry Panel. The inquiry panel shall make a finding whether the applicant has established that he or she possesses the character and fitness necessary
More informationDon t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC
Don t Leave Without Your Ethics Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC Self-Serving and Sham Affidavits in New York Self-Serving Affidavit Plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact defeating summary
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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Not for Publication. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTION TO PERMIT AND AUTHORIZE MICHAEL MOTYLINSKI, ESQUIRE AS AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPEAR IN THE SUPREME
More informationWhat You Need to Know, But Do Not Know About USPTO Discipline. Cameron Weiffenbach AIPLA Spring Meeting May 3, 2013
What You Need to Know, But Do Not Know About USPTO Discipline Cameron Weiffenbach AIPLA Spring Meeting May 3, 2013 Discipline Statistical Data Year Complaints Filed Published Decisions 1995 3 1 1996 3
More informationMODEL FEDERAL RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MODEL FEDERAL RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT Developed by Standing Committee on Professional Discipline and Center for Professional Discipline February 14, 1978 Model Federal
More informationBEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF DISCIPLINARY APPEALS APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN TODD ADAMSON, ST A TE BAR CARD NO. 24004522 CAUSE NO. 59098 FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR RECIPROCAL
More informationAdministrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents
Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part
More informationAttorney Grievance Comm n v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu, Misc. Docket AG No. 58, September Term, 2016
Attorney Grievance Comm n v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu, Misc. Docket AG No. 58, September Term, 2016 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SANCTIONS DISBARMENT Court of Appeals disbarred lawyer who failed to order transcripts
More informationState of Michigan. Attorney Grievance Commission
State of Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission Annual Report January 1, 2014 December 31, 2014 Overview The Attorney Grievance Commission was established by the Michigan Supreme Court on October 1, 1978,
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Misc. Docket AG. No. 28. September Term, 2008 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 28 September Term, 2008 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. ADEKUNLE B. OLUJOBI (AWOJOBI) Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins
More informationLOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD IN RE: DEIDRE KATRINA PETERSON DOCKET NO. 17-DB-066 REPORT OF HEARING COMMITTEE # 08 INTRODUCTION This attorney disciplinary matter arises out of formal charges consisting
More informationBYLAWS OF THE WYOMING STATE BAR
BYLAWS OF THE WYOMING STATE BAR TABLE OF CONTENTS Article I. Membership Section 1. Persons included in membership. 2. Member contact information. 3. [Effective until August 1, 2018.] Status of membership.
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,863. In the Matter of LYLE LOUIS ODO, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,863 In the Matter of LYLE LOUIS ODO, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 15, 2016. One-year
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 informationCHAPTER 20 RULE DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY: POLICY JURISDICTION
PROPOSED CHANGES TO COLORADO RULES OF PROCEDURE REGARDING ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS, COLORADO ATTORNEYS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION, AND COLORADO RULE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT 1.15 The
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 15 Annual Report January 1, 15 - December 31, 15 43 E STREET, N.W., SUITE 138 WASHINGTON, D.C. 1 Telephone: () 638-49 Facsimile: () 638-474 www.dcattorneydiscipline.org
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-012 Filing Date: February 6, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35469 IN THE MATTER OF EMILIO JACOB CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 109,512. In the Matter of SUSAN L. BOWMAN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 109,512 In the Matter of SUSAN L. BOWMAN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed October 18, 2013.
More informationPROCEDURES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NBCOT CANDIDATE/CERTIFICANT CODE OF CONDUCT
PROCEDURES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE NBCOT CANDIDATE/CERTIFICANT CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION A. Preamble In exercising its responsibility for promoting and maintaining standards of professional conduct in
More informationS18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases).
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 4, 2018 S18Y0833, S18Y0834, S18Y0835, S18Y0836, S18Y0837. IN THE MATTER OF S. QUINN JOHNSON (five cases). PER CURIAM. This Court rejected the first petition
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 informationS17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 27, 2017 S17Y0531. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID J. FARNHAM. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of special
More informationRULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1-1. NAME. The name of the body regulated by these rules shall be THE FLORIDA BAR.
RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of Florida by these rules establishes the authority and responsibilities of The Florida Bar, an official arm of the court.
More informationBYLAWS Washington State Bar Association
BYLAWS Washington State Bar Association Note: This edition of the Bylaws of the Washington State Bar Association includes the comprehensive review of the Bylaws adopted by the Board of Governors on September
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 118,378. In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 118,378 In the Matter of LANCE M. HALEY, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed March 2, 2018. One-year
More informationRule 1.8 Service Methods. (a) Except as provided in Rule 4.2 and Rule 8.9, any pleading or document required under these rules to be served on an
Rule 1.8 Service Methods. (a) Except as provided in Rule 4.2 and Rule 8.9, any pleading or document required under these rules to be served on an accused, or applicant, or attorney shall be (1) sent to
More information2018: No. 2 June. Filing: File the amended pages in your Member s Manual as follows:
2018: No. 2 June Law Society Rules 2015:* Substantive rule amendments implement the regulation of law firms by the Law Society, including the appointment of designated representatives, information sharing
More information