Legal Opinion
In re Harry Tun
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 18, 2018No. 17-BG-769PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Thompson, Associate Judge:
In this original-discipline action, the Board on Professional Responsibility (the "Board") recommends that respondent Harry Tun be suspended for one year, with a requirement of proof of fitness before *68 reinstatement, for violations of Rules 3.3 (a)(1) and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. We adopt the Board's recommendation of a one-year suspension, but decline to impose a fitness requirement.
I
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (known until 2015 as the Office of Bar Counsel) initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent after he filed, in a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-KauffmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- In Re Karen P. Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
- In re CarterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2025
- In re CarterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2025
- In re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.