Legal Opinion
In Re Teitelbaum
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 19, 1996No. 96-BG-788PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Per curiam
The Board on Professional Responsibility has found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent George A. Teitelbaum engaged in commingling, in violation of former DR 9-103(A). The underlying facts are set forth in the Board’s Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto as an Appendix. The Board recommends that Teitel-baum receive a public censure.
Neither Teitelbaum nor Bar Counsel has filed exceptions to the Board’s recommendation, and the scope of our review is narrowly circumscribed. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g); In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1287-88 (D.C.1995). Accordingly,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In Re GoldsboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re MillsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re ManceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- In Re MillerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re OsborneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In re GoldbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In re GrahamDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.