Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Sims

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 10, 2004No. 98-BG-1384Published

1DissentReid, Associate Judge

“Our purpose in conducting disciplinary proceedings and imposing sanctions is not to punish the attorney....” In re Steele, 630 A.2d 196, 200 (D.C.1993); see also In re Bettis, 855 A.2d 282 (D.C.App.2004). Rather, in administering our disciplinary system, we impose sanctions to protect “the legal profession, the courts, and the public,” In re Lenoir, 604 A.2d 14, 15 (D.C.1992). We also emphasize “the continued and restored fitness of an attorney to practice law.” Bettis, supra.

I part company with my colleagues in this matter and respectfully dissent, in part because in my view Mr. Sims has…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. In Re RoundtreeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Matter of ColsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. Matter of ShorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. In Re McBrideDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992

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

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

Powered by the Exa API