Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Matter of Mulkeen

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 22, 1992No. 91-202PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Per curiam 1

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in New Jersey for a period of three months and required to prove fit ness to practice as a condition of reinstatement to the bar, as a result of having violated several Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1(a) (a lawyer shall provide competent representation), 1.4 (a lawyer shall keep the client informed about the representation), and 1.3 (a lawyer shall represent the client zealously and diligently). On the basis of respondent’s suspension by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and pursuant to D.C.Bar Rule XI, § 11(d), this Court temporarily…

Also in this document: Per curiam 2.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Matter of KnoxDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Matter of SantanaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. In Re JamisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. In Re SlosbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. In Re LylesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. In Re SoininenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. In Re McLainDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. In Re MintzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API