Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Washington

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 4, 1988No. 85-902Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSteadman, Associate Judge

I am in accord with my colleagues’ views on the serious nature of the offenses here. However, since I think that this court should be strongly inclined to “respect the Board’s sense of equity in these matters [of sanction] unless that exercise of judgment proves to be unreasonable,”. In re Haupt, 422 A.2d 768, 771 (D.C.1980), and since in my view the Board’s proposed sanction falls within an acceptable spectrum, I would adopt its recommendation.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

In THE MATTER of Melvin Washington, Respondent.

Bar Docket Numbers: 219-84

*127…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
  3. Matter of SmithDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  4. In Re HinesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985

6 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