Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Millstein

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1995No. 95-BG-873PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the respondent, Stephen S. Millstein, be censured for commingling client funds. The Board additionally recommends that the respondent be required to attend a course in legal ethics, and certify to the Office of Bar Counsel that this requirement has been met. Noting no exceptions, we adopt this recommendation.

In the course of representing a client in a personal injury lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), the respondent obtained a settlement on his client’s behalf in the amount of $55,000. Rather…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re HesslerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. In Re IngramDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. In Re GilchristDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. In Re SpauldingDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. In Re RobinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re BerrymanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  2. In Re ChapmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. In Re TeitelbaumDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. In Re OsborneDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. In re GoldbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API