In Re Cappell
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The Board on Professional Responsibility, having adopted the findings of a hearing committee, concluded that respondent Robert E. Cappell had intentionally misappropriated client funds. Although this would ordinarily mean that respondent should be disbarred, the Board further accepted the hearing committee’s findings that this case is appropriate for mitigation of sanction under the principles of In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C.1987). The Board therefore recommends disbarment, but that the disbarment should be stayed and respondent instead placed on probation for three years subject to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re DelaneyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re PeekDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re BelzSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008
- In Re MooersDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In re of the Discipline of GrimesUtah Supreme Court · 2012
- In Re ZakroffDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- In Re BelzSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008