Legal Opinion
Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. Dyer
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 2012No. Nos. 20120020, 20120021, 20120022, 20120023PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
[¶ 1] Disciplinary Counsel and attorneys Edwin W.F. Dyer III and Anne E. Summers objected to a report of a hearing panel of the Disciplinary Board, recommending Dyer and Summers be suspended from the practice of law for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and each pay half of the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence Dyer and Summers violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(c) and 8.1(b). We order Dyer and Summers be suspended from the practice of law for nine months and each pay half of the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding.
I
[¶2]…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. Van NelsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- State of Oklahoma, Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. GasawaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- People v. RobnettSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. ZdravkovichCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. FelandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. HannNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. HoffmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Disciplinary Board v. HoffmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State v. HoweNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.