Legal Opinion

People v. Odom

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 11, 1992No. 92SA54PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, the respondent and assistant disciplinary counsel have entered into a stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct. See C.R.C.P. 241.18. An inquiry panel of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee unanimously accepted the stipulation and agreement and recommended that the respondent receive a public censure. We accept the stipulation and agreement and the recommendation of the inquiry panel and order that the respondent be publicly censured and pay the costs of these proceedings. 1

I

The respondent was admitted to the bar of this court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. RaderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  2. People v. BorchardSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  3. People v. McDowellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1986
  4. People v. ChewSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. OdomSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  2. People v. FarrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  3. People v. FritzeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  4. People v. OdomSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  5. People v. StevensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API