Legal Opinion
In Re Haar
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 7, 1995No. 95-BS-140PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KING, Associate Judge:
Bar Counsel charged respondent, an attorney admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, with improperly withdrawing funds from a client’s trust account, in violation of Disciplinary Rule (“DR”) 9-103(A)(2) (appropriations from trust account funds). 1 The hearing committee concluded, with one member dissenting, that respondent violated DR 9-108(A)(2) when he withdrew $4000 from his client’s trust account as partial payment of his fee even though respondent’s entitlement to the amount withdrawn was in dispute. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”)…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Crain v. AllisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
- Holmes v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Garcia v. LlerenaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Harrison v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. CalhounCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. CulverCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- In Re HaarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. BraskeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.