Legal Opinion
In Re Spikes
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 1, 2005No. 03-BG-803PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
Respondent, Harry T. Spikes, has filed exceptions to the report of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) finding that he violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct by filing a frivolous defamation claim, based on a privileged communication to Bar Counsel alleging attorney misconduct and other similarly privileged statements. The Board recommends that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days. We hold that the record supports the Board’s finding that respondent violated Rule 3.1 by…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Susan Mary Kamen v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Patricia McDonald and Carol BuckhamCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Washington Medical Center, Inc. v. HolleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Finkelstein v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re HopkinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- Carter v. HahnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Pietrangelo v. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLPDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- In re Stephen T.YelvertonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- In Re RaspantiSupreme Court of Louisiana · 2009
- Richardson v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- In re Dobbie & In re TaylorDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.