Legal Opinion
Matter of James
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 21, 1982No. M-93-81PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
The Board on Professional Responsibility found that respondent had violated several disciplinary rules in connection with two matters involving different clients. With regard to one case, the Board found that respondent had improperly converted to his own use funds intended by the client to be paid to a third party in settlement of a legal dispute, and that this constituted, inter alia, “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” in violation of DR [Disciplinary Rule] 1-102(A)(4). In the other case, the Board concluded that respondent violated DR…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Matter of SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Dietrich v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning AdjustmentDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of BoivinOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- DeLevay v. District of Columbia Rental Accommodations CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Matter of NevilleArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Griva v. DavisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re HinesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Arnold D. Berkeley v. Home Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
- In Re SchneiderDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.