Legal Opinion
In Re Shelnutt
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 22, 1998No. 98-BG-281PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
The crux of this matter involves respondent’s neglectful representation of a client incarcerated in the District of Columbia. 1 Respondent is charged with the following violations: Rule 1.1(b), failure to serve client with commensurate skill and care; Rule 1.3(e), failure to act with reasonable promptness in representing a client; and Rule 1.4(b), failure to explain matters to a client. The Hearing Committee found respondent to have violated these rules and the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends public censure. We adopt the Board’s recommendation.
On July 30, 1992, respondent was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re GoldsboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re LylesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re BanksDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In Re SumnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nwachukwu v. RooneyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- In re Rodriguez-QuesadaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- In Re BalsamoDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re MorrisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- IN RE JUAN LORENZO RODRIGUEZ-QUESADADistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.