DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
|
|
- Dylan Pierce Norman
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 & : A Member of the Bar of the : District of Columbia Court of Appeals : (Bar Registration No ) : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board ) for consideration of one original case and one reciprocal case regarding Burman A. Berger ( Respondent ). In the original case, we consider a report and recommendation filed by Hearing Committee Nine (the Committee ) which found that Respondent failed to respond to an ethical complaint and recommended a suspension of 30 days with reinstatement conditioned upon full cooperation with Bar Counsel s investigation into the ethical complaint and completion of six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and professional responsibility. In the reciprocal case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the Court ) directed the Board to recommend whether identical reciprocal discipline is warranted due to Respondent s disbarment by the Court of Appeals of Maryland ( the Maryland Court ) on September 20, The Board recommends the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment, to be effective immediately, but deemed to commence for purposes of reinstatement on the date Respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, 14(g). The Board will dismiss the original case as moot.
2 I. BACKGROUND Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the Court on March 1, Respondent is also a member of the Bars of Maryland and Virginia. A. The Original Case On November 30, 2004, Bar Counsel filed with the Board a Specification of Charges and a Petition Instituting Formal Disciplinary Proceedings in the original case alleging that Respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, 2(b)(3). These alleged violations arose from Respondent s failure to respond to Bar Counsel s requests for information regarding an ethical complaint and Respondent s failure to comply with the Board s order compelling a response to the ethical complaint. Bar Counsel Exhibit ( BX ) B. Respondent did not respond to the petition. The Committee held a preliminary hearing on March 8, Respondent did not attend. The Committee conducted a hearing in the case on March 22, Bar Counsel s Exhibits A through D and 1 through 13 were received in evidence. Transcript ( Tr. ) at 22. Bar Counsel called two witnesses to testify regarding the adequacy of notice. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. Bar Counsel filed Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation as to Sanction on April 13, Respondent did not file an opposition. On June 24, 2005, the Committee issued its Report and Recommendation finding that Respondent violated Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, 2(b)(3) and recommending that Respondent be suspended for 30 days with reinstatement conditioned upon full cooperation with Bar Counsel s investigation of the underlying ethical complaint and completion of six hours of continuing legal education in the areas of ethics and professional responsibility. Bar Counsel filed an exception to the Committee s Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2005, asserting that Respondent s 2
3 sanction should include reinstatement conditioned upon proof of fitness to practice law and his submission of substantive responses to Bar Counsel s inquiries. Because Respondent did not file a brief with the Board, Bar Counsel waived oral argument. Before the Board considered the original case, Bar Counsel filed a reciprocal case arising out of Respondent s disbarment by consent in the Maryland Court. Because we agree that the identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment is warranted, we do not further address the original case and dismiss it as moot. B. The Reciprocal Case On September 27, 2005, Bar Counsel filed with the Court a certified copy of a September 20, 2005 order of the Maryland Court disbarring Respondent by consent. On October 18, 2005, the Court issued an Order suspending Respondent on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(d) and directing the Board either to (i) recommend whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline, or (ii) determine whether the Board should proceed de novo. In re Berger, No. 05-BG-1054, Order (D.C. Oct. 18, 2005). Bar Counsel filed a statement on November 17, 2005, recommending the imposition of the identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment. Bar Counsel sent a copy of this statement to Respondent s last known home address in Maryland. 1 Respondent did not file a statement regarding his position on reciprocal discipline and has not participated in these proceedings. 1 In the original case, Bar Counsel learned that Respondent s business address listed on his Bar records was wrong. Tr. at 21. Because District of Columbia attorneys are obligated to notify the Secretary of the Bar of any change of address within 30 days of such change, D.C. Bar R. II, 2(1), we find Bar Counsel s notice to Respondent of these proceedings at his listed home address to be adequate. 3
4 II. THE MARYLAND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS On September 12, 2005, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, together with Respondent and his counsel, filed a joint petition for disbarment by consent in the Maryland Court. The joint petition detailed the allegations in two cases of ethical violations filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. In the first case, Respondent was alleged to have failed to act with reasonable diligence and failed to keep his two clients reasonably informed about the status of their personal injury claims against the District of Columbia government. Respondent admitted that sufficient evidence could have been produced at a hearing to establish that he violated Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct ( MPRC ) Rules 1.3 and 1.4. In addition, Respondent failed to respond to Bar Counsel s demand for information regarding this ethical complaint in violation of MPRC 8.1(b). In the second case, Respondent was alleged to have failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her legal dispute involving an unfinished home improvement project. Respondent admitted that sufficient evidence could have been produced at a hearing to establish that he violated MPRC 1.4. Further, Respondent also failed to respond to two other ethics complaints alleging lack of diligence and failure to communicate. Respondent s violations took place while he was subject to a Conditional Diversion Agreement and a Supplemental Conditional Diversion Agreement approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. Respondent was placed in the Conditional Diversion program in 2002 as the result of previous violations of MPRC 1.3, 1.4 and 8.1(b). Respondent admitted to the Maryland Court that he had engaged in further and similar professional misconduct while subject to the terms of the Conditional Diversion Agreement. 4
5 Respondent stated that his consent to disbarment was freely and voluntarily given, and that he understood the implications of consenting to disbarment. Respondent also consented to pay $ to reimburse the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland for costs incurred in its investigation. On September 20, 2005, the Maryland Court disbarred Respondent and ordered him to pay the Grievance Commission s costs. 2 III. RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE There is a presumption in favor of imposing identical reciprocal discipline that may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the five exceptions set out in D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c) exists. D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(f); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992). 3 When Bar Counsel urges reciprocal discipline, and the respondent does not contest it, the Board s role is limited 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)). The imposition of identical discipline when the respondent fails to object 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). 2 Respondent was recently disbarred by the federal court in Maryland based upon his disbarment by the Maryland Court. In re Berger, Misc. No (D. Md. Dec. 16, 2005). 3 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 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 record in this case discloses that while Respondent has not participated in these proceedings he was afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. Bar Counsel and the Court sent Respondent multiple notices of the reciprocal action to his home address in North Potomac, Maryland. There is nothing in the record to suggest that any of these letters were returned undelivered. Moreover, the address used is the same as the address listed under Respondent s signature on the joint petition for disbarment by consent filed with the Maryland Court on September 12, Accordingly, we find Bar Counsel s notice to Respondent of these proceedings adequate. None of the exceptions to D.C. Bar R. XI, 11(c) apply here. Respondent voluntarily consented to the Maryland discipline. Respondent s sworn acknowledgement that sufficient evidence of misconduct could be established is adequate proof to sustain the charges against him. Because the Maryland Rules that Respondent was found to have violated are virtually identical to the District of Columbia counterparts, Respondent s misconduct in Maryland would constitute misconduct in this jurisdiction. Furthermore, the misconduct established in Maryland does not warrant substantially different discipline here. The Maryland Court had before it Respondent s admission to the misconduct charged in two separate ethics complaints at a time when Respondent was subject to a Conditional Diversion Agreement for prior misconduct. The Maryland Court properly considered Respondent s history of neglect, 4 The Maryland proceedings identify Respondent s address in Gaithersburg, while the mailings by Bar Counsel and the Court listed his address as North Potomac. The street address and the postal zip code are the same on both and the Board takes notice of the fact that parts of Gaithersburg have been re-named North Potomac. The notices in the original case were addressed to and personally served on Respondent at a new business address in Rockville, Maryland. Respondent did not respond to these notices either. Because Respondent has since been disbarred in Maryland, it is reasonable to expect mail sent to his home address is more likely to reach Respondent than mail addressed to a business address. 6
7 failure to communicate with clients, and disregard of disciplinary authorities. Given this history of serious ethical misconduct over three years, we find that disbarment could have been imposed for the same misconduct in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Haupt, 444 A.2d 317 (D.C. 1982) (per curiarn) (disbarment warrinted for repeated neglect of numerous clients' cases and other ethical misconduct). Finally, there is no "disciplining court" issue presented here. Accordingly, it would not result in a grave injustice to impose the identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment. Childress, 811 A.2d at 807. IV. CONCLUSION We recommend that the Court impose identical reciprocal discipline on Respondent of disbarment. For purpose of reinstatement, Respondent's suspension should run from the time he files an affidavit that fully complies with D.C. Bar R. XI, 5 14(g). We Mher dismiss the original case as moot. BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY By: \ Martin R. Baach Chair All members of the Board concur in this Report and Recommendation, except Mr. KIein and Ms. Helfrich, who did not participate.
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 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 : : : : : : : : : :
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
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: ) ) 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 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: : : 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 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
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 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: ) ) 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: ) ) 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 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: : : JONATHAN T. ZACKEY, : Bar Docket No. 351-01 : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON
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 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 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. 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 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: : : 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 information: No. 852 Disciplinary Docket No. 3. : Nos. 148 DB 2003 & 174 DB : Attorney Registration No : (Allegheny County) ORDER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of : No. 852 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 JOSEPH E. HUDAK : Nos. 148 DB 2003 & 174 DB 2003 : Attorney Registration No. 45882 PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
PER CURIAM. Supreme Court of Florida No. SC03-1194 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. MARJORIE HOLLMAN SHOUREAS, Respondent. No. SC03-1333 THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, vs. MARJORIE HOLLMAN SHOUREAS, Respondent.
More informationRecommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated July 29, 2011, it is hereby
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 1759 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner. : No. 78 DB 2010 V. : Attorney Registration No. 58783 MARK D. LANCASTER, Respondent
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationOPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS. Sanction Imposed: Two Year and Three Month Suspension
People v. Chastain, No. GC98A53 (consolidated with No. GC98A59). The Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board imposed a two-year and threemonth suspension in this reciprocal discipline action arising
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 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 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 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 MATTER OF DANIEL R. SIEGEL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Docket No. DRB 93-444 IN THE MATTER OF DANIEL R. SIEGEL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision and Recommendation of the Argued: February i0, 1994 Decided: August i, 1994 Richard J. Engelhardt
More informationSOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
SOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Accepted and approved, as amended, by the Standing Administrative Committee on June 22, 2001 SOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES
More informationDeborah Fineman appeared on behalf of the District VA Ethics Committee. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 16-277 District Docket No. VA-2015-0033E IN THE MATTER OF NANCY I. OFELD AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: January 19, 2017 Decided:
More informationAPPENDIX A Affidavit in Support of Application to Resign While Proceeding or Investigation is Pending INSTRUCTIONS An application pursuant to section
APPENDIX A Affidavit in Support of Application to Resign While Proceeding or Investigation is Pending INSTRUCTIONS An application pursuant to section 1240.10 of these Rules to resign as an attorney and
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 informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE A FOREIGN ATTORNEYS. Rule 1A:5. Virginia Corporate Counsel & Corporate Counsel Registrants.
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART ONE A FOREIGN ATTORNEYS Rule 1A:5. Virginia Corporate Counsel & Corporate Counsel Registrants. Introduction Notwithstanding any rule of this Court to the contrary,
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 03-457 IN THE MATTER OF FERNANDO REGOJO AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: February 13, 2004 Decided: April 6, 2004 James P. Flynn
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NITTSKOFF. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Nittskoff, 130 Ohio St.3d 433, 2011-Ohio-5758.] Attorneys
More information[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894.]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894.] DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEEHAN [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894.] Attorneys Misconduct
More information[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), Ohio St.3d.] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment --
Cleveland Bar Association v. Armon. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon (1997), Ohio St.3d.] Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Appropriation of client funds and a pattern of neglect
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 informationKathleen Goger appeared on behalf of the District VB Ethics Committee. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 08-309 District Docket No. VB-07-24E IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES E. AUSTIN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Corrected Decision Argued: January 15, 2009
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 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 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 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 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 informationPeople v. Ringler. 12PDJ087. June 21, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Victoria Lynne Ringler (Attorney
People v. Ringler. 12PDJ087. June 21, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Victoria Lynne Ringler (Attorney Registration Number 30727), effective July 26, 2013. Ringler
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 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 informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: : : PARIS A. ARTIS, : Bar Docket No. 169-98 : Respondent. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL
More informationmail to respondent s last known office address in Camden, New Jersey. The returned
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DgB 01-014 IN THE MATTER OF AARON SMITH AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Default [R. 1:20-4(f)] Decided: October 9, 2001 To the Honorable Chief
More informationLAWYERING FOR A LAWYER WITH A DISABILITY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS
LAWYERING FOR A LAWYER WITH A DISABILITY BEFORE THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS By: José R. Guerrero, Jr., Esq. and Bob Bennett The Bennett Law Firm 515 Louisiana, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 T: (713) 225-6000
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194
STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In Re: Norman R. Blais, Esq. PRB File No. 2015-084 Decision No. 194 Norman R. Blais, Esq., Respondent, is publicly Reprimanded and placed on probation
More informationAPPENDIX C OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
APPENDIX C OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE Pre Hearing: The investigator will forward the investigative report to the Office of Student Conduct. The Director of the Office of Student Conduct
More information1. BG s Constitution, its Regulations and the various conditions of membership, registration and affiliation together require that:
British Gymnastics Complaints & Disciplinary Procedures These procedures were amended on Thursday 21 st February 2013 and approved by the Ethics and Welfare Committee. All previous procedures are superseded
More informationPeople v. Kolhouse. 13PDJ001. August 13, Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Nicole M. Kolhouse (Attorney
People v. Kolhouse. 13PDJ001. August 13, 2013. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Nicole M. Kolhouse (Attorney Registration Number 33291) from the practice of law for three
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 06-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 informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-BG-689. On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
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 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 informationTo the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of. This matter was before us on a certification of default
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 10-032 District Docket No. IIB-2009-0006E IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL RAK AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decided: June 4, 2010 To the Honorable Chief
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 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 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 informationRULES OF THE STATE BAR OF YAP. Table of Contents. Statement of Purpose and Policy 1
RULES OF THE STATE BAR OF YAP Table of Contents Statement of Purpose and Policy 1 Rule 1. Establishment of State Bar 1 Rule 2. Authority of State Court 1 Rule 3. Membership and Annual Dues Required 1 (a)
More informationDecision. Richard J. Engelhardt appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 07-026 District Docket No. IV-06-469E IN THE MATTER OF NATHANIEL MARTIN DAVIS AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: March 15, 2007 Decided:
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 informationMARINE CORPS LEAGUE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE LESSON PLAN 5
MARINE CORPS LEAGUE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE LESSON PLAN 5 INDEX OF LESSON PLAN 5 V. Chapter 9 Administrative Procedures Page A. Section 900 Definitions 3 B. Section 900A
More information