Legal Opinion
In Re Hopkins
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 31, 1996No. 95-BG-845PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEADMAN Associate Judge:
The principal issue to be determined in this disciplinary matter is the scope of DR 1-102(A)(5) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which provided that a “lawyer shall not ... [ejngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” 1 The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) concluded that respondent’s conduct did not violate that provision and dismissed the petition against respondent. Bar Counsel took an exception to this court. Interpreting our precedents relating to former DR 1-102(A)(5) somewhat differently than the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re HutchinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Matter of ShorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- In Re ChildressDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- In Re Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re FairDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re UkwuDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.