Legal Opinion
In Re Tinsley
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 1995No. 94-BG-1668PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
The issue presented on this petition is whether Lindell Tinsley has shown his fitness to be reinstated to the practice of law. See In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985). Tinsley contends that he has. The Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel contend that he has not. We agree with the Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel on this issue. Thus, we deny the petition for reinstatement.
By order of this court dated December 3, 1990, Tinsley was suspended from the practice of law for one year with a requirement that he show fitness before being reinstated. In re…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re RoundtreeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- In Re StantonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- In Re TinsleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In re BrownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re StarnesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- In Re PullingsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
- In Re ReynoldsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In re Chris C. YumDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.