Legal Opinion
In Re Romansky
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided June 5, 2003No. 99-BG-1626PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Associate Judge:
The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) concluded that respondent, Michael A. Romansky, acted dishonestly in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct when he: 1) added hours to the fee bills of two Firm clients in order to “premium bill” contrary to the provisions of their existing fee agreements that only hours actually worked would be billed and without notifying the clients of the premium billing and 2) authored, backdated and used, without the client’s approval, a purported letter from the client. For these violations, the Board…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re PenningtonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Moore v. WallerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-KauffmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.