Legal Opinion
People v. Hooker
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided October 18, 2013No. Nos. 11PDJ084, 13PDJ002, 12PDJ004, 12PDJ088PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*78OPINION AND DECISION IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.19(c)
On August 29, 2013, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court") held a sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b). Kim E. Ikeler appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"), and Daynel L. Hooker ("Respondent") appeared with her counsel, David C. Little. The Court now issues the following "Opinion and Decision Imposing Sanctions Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.19(c)."
I. SUMMARY
Absent significant mitigating factors, disbarment is generally appropriate when an attorney knowingly converts…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In Re RooseSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003
- People v. VaralloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- People v. RichardsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- In Re FischerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- In Re RosenSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re the Motion to Permit & Authorize MotylinskiSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2014
- N.C. State Bar v. MusinguziCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025