Legal Opinion
In Re Malvin
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided September 12, 1983No. 83-157PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) has petitioned this court for the temporary suspension of respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rule XI, § 3(3) of our Rules Governing the Bar. The Board asserts that respondent has violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting three legal matters entrusted to him, DR 7-101(A)(1) and (2) by failing to seek the lawful objectives of three clients, DR 2-110(A)(3) by abandoning two clients and refusing to refund their fees, and DR 1-102(A)(5) by ignoring the disciplinary process. The Board has also submitted several affidavits…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Andresen v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Spevack v. KleinSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1958
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. VaralloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
- In re the Discipline of Trujillo, No. 4428Utah Supreme Court · 2001
- Tapp v. LigonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2013
- In Re CummingsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
- In re CummingsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.