Legal Opinion

In Re Giles

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 23, 1999No. 99-BG-268PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent be suspended for thirty days and required to prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement. The recommendation stems from findings by a hearing committee, accepted by the Board, that respondent had violated D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) (failure to comply with an order of the Board) and Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (conduct seriously interfering with the administration of justice). The charges were based upon respondent’s persistent failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel in an investigation of respondent’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In Re GoldsboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
  2. In Re LockieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. In Re LillyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. In Re ArtisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. In Re GodetteDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. In Re SteinbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. In Re ScanlonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005

7 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