Legal Opinion

In Re Saul

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 22, 1996No. 93-BG-1147, 93-BG-1209, 93-BG-1580 and 95-BG-168PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent was convicted of four counts of bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1988 & Supp. V 1993), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Saul, No. 93-0108-0001 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 1993). The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended respondent’s disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (1995 Repl.) in light of the fact that bank fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude. See In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036, 1037 (D.C.1981). Respondent originally urged that, instead of disbarment, we impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re RosenbleetDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re ShoreDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
  2. In Re O'MalleyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API