Opinion

In re Sherlock v. Grigsby

  • 167 A.3d 551
  • 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 220
  • 2017 WL 3568392
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Aug 17, 2017
Status
Published
On the bench
Beckwith, McLeese, Farrell
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 16-BG-1069

IN RE SHERLOCK V. GRIGSBY,

Respondent. Board Docket Nos. 14-BD-103,

14-BD-105, 14-BD-106 &

14-BD-107

Bar Registration No. 494432 DDNs: 2013-D064, 2013-

D439, 2013-D240, 2013-D100

BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge; McLeese, Associate Judge; and Farrell,

Senior Judge.

ORDER

(FILED – August 17, 2017)

The Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that respondent

engaged in intentional misappropriation and recommends that the respondent be

disbarred. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has excepted to that conclusion and

recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. D.C. Bar R.

XI, § 9 (h)(2).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Sherlock V. Grigsby is hereby

disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. For purposes of

reinstatement, the period of disbarment will begin to run when Mr. Grigsby has

filed an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).

PER CURIAM

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.