Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In Re Roxborough

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 6, 1996No. 95-BG-1710PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Before us is a most unusual, if not unique, situation. The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has recommended that respondent be suspended for thirty days as a consequence of his violation of four disciplinary rules. 1 Subsequent to the submission of the Board’s Report and Recommendation to us, to which no exceptions had been taken, Bar Counsel and Respondent filed a joint motion with the court, asking that the recommended sanction be increased by the imposition of a requirement of a showing of fitness before reinstatement. See D.C.Bar R. XI, §§ 3(a)(2), 16(d). The joint motion…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. In Re FowlerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. In Re LockieDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. In Re SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. In Re O'BrienDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. In re MartinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. In Re LewisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  3. In Re ShawDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. In Re RoxboroughDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. In Re MorrisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API