Legal Opinion

Matter of Bradbury

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 29, 1992No. 91-SP-210PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In this reciprocal discipline case, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that reciprocal discipline be imposed although not in the precise form as was imposed on respondent in Virginia. See D.C.Bar Rule XI, Sec. 11(c) & (f).

We incorporate by reference the Report of the Board on Professional Responsibility of October 11, 1991. In the Report, the Board describes the discipline imposed on respondent in Virginia for three matters: (1) a public reprimand for neglect for failure to pursue a medical malpractice claim in 1985-86; (2) a one month suspension for neglect in handling a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
In Re GarnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
In Re PeekDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
Matter of CouryDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
Matter of HirschbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by6 opinions

In Re ManceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
In Re StowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
In Re BettisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
In Re RobertsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
In re BanksDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998

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