Legal Opinion

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Holtz

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1964No. C. D. 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHale, J.

Indolence, laziness, negligence in the gross, want of diligence — these deficiencies in an attorney are as costly to a client in the loss or curtailment of his rights as *425they are burdensome to the profession and the courts in general. Because these shortcomings may have the same damaging effect as does professional incompetence, or even conduct involving moral turpitude, they are quite properly, in extreme cases, the subject of inquiry in a disciplinary proceeding. This disciplinary proceeding illustrates the point, affecting as it does an attorney of good moral reputation and character.

Mr.…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against TalbotWashington Supreme Court · 1970
  2. In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against TalbotWashington Supreme Court · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API