Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Marshall

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 22, 2000No. 97-BG-1095Published

1DissentWagner, Chief Judge

The court holds that where an attorney’s misconduct would warrant disbarment, addiction to cocaine attributable to the inten*541tional use of that drug can not be used as a mitigating factor in determining sanction. This rule has some appeal because it is somewhat simple to apply and strongly condemns the criminal conduct in which an addict necessarily engages in order to obtain controlled substances to feed his addiction.1 However, as the Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR) points out, A[i]t is not necessary or desirable for this Court to close the door in every case to consideration of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Matter of RivkindArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  3. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against RentelWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. In Re ApplerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  5. In Re StanbackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996

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

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

Powered by the Exa API