Legal Opinion
In Re Bell
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 27, 1998No. 96-BG-1551, 96-BG-1679PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TERRY, Associate Judge:
In these reciprocal disciplinary proceedings against respondents Bell and Paugh, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) recommends that this court publicly censure respondents, a sanction equivalent to the public reprimand ordered by the Mary land Court of Appeals. Bar Counsel supports the imposition of reciprocal discipline. Mr. Bell has'filed a statement that he does not object to a public censure; Mr. Paugh has filed no statement and has not challenged the Board’s recommendation in any respect. Neither Bell nor Paugh has filed a brief in this court.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re GoldsboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re SheridanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re DreierDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re AldridgeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re LaibstainDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- In Re DemosDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BridgesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re MaxwellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re GrossmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.