Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Godette

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided April 5, 2007No. 05-BG-412Published

1DissentWagner, Senior Judge

Contrary to the recommendations of both the Board on Professional Responsibility (Board) and the Hearing Committee, the majority recommends augmenting a thirty-day suspension sanction and other specified conditions, with a fitness requirement before reinstatement.1 The Board *1168rejected recommending a fitness requirement for respondent’s failure to respond to a single ethical complaint because it is not warranted under either the Cater standard, which this court has since adopted,2 or under a comparative case analysis. The Board’s recommendation is consistent with controlling legal principles…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In Re RoundtreeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. In Re Darwin Charles BrownCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
  5. In Re TempleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993

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

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

Powered by the Exa API