Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

In re Thomas Fortune Fay

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided March 19, 2015No. 14-BG-7PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

After an extensive hearing, a Hearing Committee (Committee), concluded that, in the circumstances presented, respondent Thomas Fortune Fay entered into an attorney-client relationship with complainant Charles Carter at the request of a lawyer who was not licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. The Board on Professional Responsibility (Board) approved the Committee’s findings and conclusions and recommends that respondent receive an informal admonition for violating several Rules of Professional Conduct (Rules) relating to that attorney-client relationship. For the reasons stated…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Ex Parte GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  3. Theard v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. In Re RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-KauffmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. Patrick F. Andrews v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
  3. In re GreenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. In re Seth Adam RobbinsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. In re FrancisDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016

17 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