Legal Opinion
In Re Hallmark
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 28, 2003No. 01-BG-751PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RUIZ, Associate Judge:
Kim E. Hallmark excepts from a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), which found several violations of Rules 1.4(a), 1.15(d), 1.16(d) and 8.4(d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and our Rule XI, Sections 2(b)(3) and (4). Respondent challenges the Board’s findings that she violated Rules 1.15(d) and 1.16(d) by failing to refund unearned fees to a client after termination of legal representation, and Rule 1.4(a) by failing to keep her clients reasonably informed of the status of their respective cases. She…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- In Re RoundtreeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- In Re RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
- In Re SteeleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- In Re Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re Cleaver-BascombeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- In Re ManceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- In Re EvansDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- In Re UkwuDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.