Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Smith

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 31, 1994No. 94-BG-92PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) that respondent, Charles E. Smith, be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty days, and be required to prove his fitness as a condition of reinstatement, based upon its finding that respondent violated the following disciplinary rules: DR 9-103(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (requiring lawyer to promptly return client’s property); Rule 8.4(d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct (serious…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re LockieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. In Re WallerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. In Re SiegelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. In Re SolomonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re DelaneyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. In Re HallmarkDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. In Re LewisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. In Re ArtisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. In Re SteinbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API