Legal Opinion
In Re ALDRIDGE
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 17, 1993No. 92-SP-227PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
2Per curiam
On February 27, 1992, respondent Al-dridge was disciplined in Maryland for the violation of three disciplinary rules relating to competence, diligence, and client communication. The Maryland Court of Appeals imposed an “indefinite suspension” on respondent, with the right to seek reinstatement after thirty days. Respondent was in fact reinstated in Maryland as of April 24, 1992.
As reciprocal discipline, our Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended a suspension of sixty days. 1 Bar Counsel in a letter submission subsequent to the Board’s Report to us notes that Respondent has…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re ZilberbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re ReidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- In Re RobertsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
4Cited by4 opinions
- In Re HitselbergerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re DietzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re BergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re AldridgeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995