Legal Opinion
In Re Mattingly
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 31, 2002No. 01-BG-981PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM. -
The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), in accord with the Hearing Committee, has found that respondent Thomas J. Mattingly violated D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3), and Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by fading to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries, and to orders of the Board directing a response, in three separate disciplinary investigations. This is the second time respondent has faced discipline by this court for failing to respond to Bar Counsel and the Board. In 1999, we suspended respondent for thirty days for the same misconduct. In re Mattingly,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In Re DelaneyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re MattinglyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
3Cited by6 opinions
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re ArtisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BellerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- In Re ArtisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re FolletteDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.