Legal Opinion
In Re Morrell
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 28, 1996No. 95-BG-1794PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FERREN, Associate Judge:
The Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that Michael X. Morrell, respondent, violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including: Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (illegal acts involving moral turpitude); DR 1-102(A)(4) (dishonest, deceitful, or fraudulent conduct); DR 9-103(A) (misappropriation of client funds); and DR 9-103(B) (failing to keep complete records and to account for client funds). 1 The Board recommended that this court impose the ultimate sanction of disbarment. Morrell makes four arguments for rejecting the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Matter of SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Chambers v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- In Re SibleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- In Re CarlsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re RichardsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BraskeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. CaffertyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.