Legal Opinion
In Re Siegel
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 22, 1993No. 92-SP-807, 93-SP-183PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Per curiam
Before us are two unrelated but consolidated disciplinary matters in which the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that we impose a combined sanction of suspension for six months plus the requirement that respondent prove fitness as a condition of reinstatement. Respondent does not contest the recommendation — indeed, despite proper notice, he took part in neither disciplinary hearing and filed no exceptions to the recommendations of the two Hearing Committees.
We accept the recommendation of the Board. See In re Thompson, 492 A.2d 866, 867 (D.C.1985) (Board’s task, where…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re RoundtreeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- In the Matter of ThompsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- Matter of WhitlockDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Matter of RussellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re DelaneyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re HopkinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re LockieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re ArtisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.