Legal Opinion
In Re Sumner
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 19, 1995No. 93-BG-1007PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Per curiam
In this disciplinary proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) found that respondent, David G. Sumner, had engaged in conduct which violated the following six Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(a) and 1.1(b) (failure to provide competent representation and representation commensurate with that generally provided by lawyers in similar matters); Rule 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed of status of a matter); Rule 1.16(d) (failure to return papers to which client is entitled and to refund fees); Rule 1.5(b) (failure to set forth basis for fee in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- In Re PeekDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In Re EdwardsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BernsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In Re LylesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re DrewDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re LewisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.