Legal Opinion
In re Herbst
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 2, 2007No. 06-BG-1413PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
In May 2006, Hearing Committee Number Eight found that respondent Mark C. Herbst had violated Rules 1.1 (failure to provide competent representation), 1.2(a) (failure to abide by client’s decision/consult clients), 1.4(a)-(b) (failure to communicate adequately with client), 1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation and failure to keep adequate trust records), and 5.3(b) (failure to adequately supervise non-lawyer employees) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. The Hearing Committee’s findings were based on respondent’s admissions that one of his non-lawyer employees was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BaileyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re OsborneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re RobinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- In re Dobbie & In re TaylorDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
- In re Harris LindseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2020
- In re John F. Kennedy and Kathleen A. DolanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022
- In re Kennedy and DolanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2022