Legal Opinion
In Re Dunietz
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 31, 1996No. 94-BG-780PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WAGNER, Chief Judge:
In this disciplinary case, respondent stipulated to the facts supporting charges filed by Bar Counsel that he violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter), DR 7-101(A)(l) (intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client), Rule 1.3(a) (failure to represent client zealously and diligently), Rule 1.3(c) (failure to act with reasonable promptness in representing a client) and Rule 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed of the status of the case). 1 Respondent conceded that his conduct violated these rules and, in lieu of an…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- In Re TempleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Matter of ShillaireDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
- In Re PeekDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- In Re FullerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In Re EdwardsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BernsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re SpiridonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.