Legal Opinion
In re Mandel
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 27, 1992No. 85-1648PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
Respondent seeks a hearing before the Board on Professional Responsibility to present evidence that his crimes (4 counts of obtaining possession of a controlled substance by forgery, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3)) were a direct result of his addiction that began when he received dilaudid over a two year period (1982-84) from his physician to treat cervical pain. The D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility found that the crime of which Mandel had been convicted was a per se crime of moral turpitude, and recommended that he be disbarred if his conviction became final. BPR Report of May 12, 1986, at…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re McBrideDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re TempleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- In Re RichardsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re HopmayerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In Re TraversDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re HopmayerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993