Legal Opinion
In Re Shaw
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided July 12, 2001No. 00-BG-837PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
Before us is a unanimous recommendation by the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be publicly censured for violation of two rules of professional conduct: Rule 1.5(a) (charging an unreasonable fee), and Rule 1.15(b) (failure to notify interested party of receipt of funds). Respondent has filed exceptions, asserting that the finding that he violated Rule 1.15(b) lacks support and that a public censure is inconsistent with the sanction imposed in similar cases.
1. Rules Violations
Briefly put, 1 the record supports the following facts. Respondent was retained to represent a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. KempCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Riemer v. Columbia Medical Plan, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Matter of LandesbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re RossDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re LopesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- In Re BettisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- In Re MitchellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- In Re ClowerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- In Re BrownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.