Legal Opinion
In Re Greenspan
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 9, 2006No. 02-BG-1350, 04-BG-73PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*327REID, Associate Judge:
These consolidated cases, involving reciprocal discipline of two members of the District of Columbia Bar, respondents Howard L. Greenspan and Leslie D. Sil-verman, require us to determine whether the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers and the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland are “disciplining court[s]” within the meaning of D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(a) (2005). We hold that neither the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers nor the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland is a “disciplining court” under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(a) (2006); and that before reciprocal…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- In Re SnyderSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- United States v. GoldenbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Parreco v. District of Columbia Rental Housing CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hinton v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- HAVILAH REAL PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC v. VLK, LLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2015
- Bean v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- In re Laurence F. JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2017
- In re CooperDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.