Legal Opinion
In Re Haar
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 17, 1997No. 96-BG-307PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FERREN, Associate Judge:
In In re Haar, 667 A.2d 1350 (D.C.1995) (hereinafter Haar I), we concluded that Paul S. Haar, a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, had violated Disciplinary Rule 9-103(A)(2) then in effect, forbidding an attorney to withdraw funds that allegedly belonged to the attorney from an account holding funds belonging both to the attorney and to the client, when the attorney’s right to the claimed funds “is disputed by the client.”1 We remanded to the Board on Professional Responsibility for recommendation of an appropriate sanction. See id. at 1355. The Board has…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In Re BerrymanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re the Discipline of DorothySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. CulverCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- In Re HagerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re ManceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.