In re Wemhoff
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
Having found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent, Daniel M. Wem-hoff, violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) (revealing a client confidence or secret without authorization or other justification), 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice), the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) recommended that respondent be suspended for thirty days, that the suspension be stayed, and that respondent be placed on probation for…
2Cited by5 opinions
- IN RE JEROME E. CLAIRDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- In re ClairDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2016
- In re Crane IVDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2025
- In re JacksonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2023
- Williams v. Romarm S.A.District Court, District of Columbia · 2020