Legal Opinion
In re William N. Roger
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided April 2, 2015No. 13-BG-1503PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
Having found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, William N. Rogers, violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2(a) (contact with a represented party) and 8.4(c) (dishonesty), the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of ninety days, and be required to prove his fitness to practice law as a condition of reinstatement. The Board found that respondent surreptitiously and repeatedly met with another person, known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, without that other lawyer’s consent.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In re SamadDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- In Re WechslerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In Re WinstonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In re CoopetDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re DanielsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
- In re Lathal Ponder, Jr.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015