Legal Opinion
In Re Hallal
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 27, 2008No. 04-BG-839PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
After respondent, John R. Hallal, filed a limited exception to the Board on Professional Responsibility’s (“Board”) September 30, 2005 Report and Recommendation, we remanded his case to the Board to determine whether he should be afforded nunc pro tunc treatment with respect to the effective date of his uncontested reciprocal suspension. Following remand, the Board recommended that respondent be suspended for five years from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, with the suspension to run nunc pro tunc, from June 23, 2003. We accept the recommendation of the Board.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Mr.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re GoldsboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- In Re SlosbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Matter of GoldbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re MintzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re SibleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- In Re WeekesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- IN RE DANA JOHNSONDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- In re JohnsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- In re LeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013