Legal Opinion

In Re O'Toole

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided June 23, 2005No. 04-BG-245PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This is a matter of reciprocal discipline based on the February 18, 2004 order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which suspended the respondent from the practice of law in Maryland for thirty days, effective as of that date. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends identical reciprocal discipline, with the effective date of suspension to run, nunc pro tunc, from June 7, 2004, the date on which the respondent first filed a § 14(g) affidavit with this court. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s recommendation. Therefore, we adopt the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re SlosbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Matter of GoldbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. In Re ColeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. In Re GardnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Attorney Grievance Commission v. O'TooleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re GonzalezDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. MidlenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
  3. In re KatzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API