# In Re Drury

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 10, 1996 · 683 A.2d 465

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694287

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re John E. DRURY, Respondent. a Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 10, 1996
- **Citations:** 683 A.2d 465; 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 211; 1996 WL 590650
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schwelb
- **Judges:** Ferren, Schwelb, Reid
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694287

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that this court defers to the Board’s recommended disposition “unless the sanction is unwarranted or inconsistent with sanctions for comparable conduct”

## Opinion text

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
*470 The primary purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public, and I question whether that purpose is served by treating “clinical depression” and “a personality disorder” as factors warranting more lenient sanctions. Drury’s affliction with these disorders provides little consolation to the client whose appeal was dismissed as a result of Drury’s aggravated neglect. Given Kersey 1 and its progeny, however, I join the judgment and opinion of the court.
. In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C.1987).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694287. Public record. Not legal advice.