Legal Opinion
In Re Pels
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided January 30, 1995No. 93-BG-1395PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
This disciplinary matter, as various members of the Board on Professional Responsibility recognized, tests the resolve of this court in enforcing the rule reaffirmed in In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc), “that in virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment will be the only appro priate sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence.” Id. at 191. Majorities of the Hearing Committee (the Committee) and the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) concluded that respondent misappropriated…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re KerseyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1987
- In Re MicheelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re HarrisonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In Re HesslerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- In Re PiersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- In Re BerrymanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- In Re FairDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.