Legal Opinion

In re Roxborough

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 19, 1998No. 96-BG-1491PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

STEADMAN, Associate Judge:

In what we termed “a most unusual, if not unique, situation,” this court on May 6,1996, acquiesced in a joint motion of respondent Roxborough and Bar Counsel to increase the sanction against Roxborough recommended by the Board on Professional Responsibility; we suspended him for thirty days with a requirement that, as a condition of reinstatement, he prove fitness pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d). In re Roxborough, 675 A.2d 950 (D.C.1996) (“Roxborough I”).

Subsequently, in what the parties tacitly concede was, at least in part, a follow-up to this suspension in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re CornishDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. In Re RoxboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. In Re RoxboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re RoxboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API