# In Re Manville

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 4, 1988 · 538 A.2d 1128

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696857

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Daniel E. MANVILLE (No. 84-1362), Applicant. in Re Walter STRAUSS (No. 87-92), Applicant. in Re George L. BROOKS (No. 87-93), Applicant
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 4, 1988
- **Citations:** 538 A.2d 1128; 1988 D.C. App. LEXIS 43; 1988 WL 19942
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Newman
- **Judges:** Pryor, MacK, Newman, Ferren, Belson, Terry, Rogers, Steadman
- **Cited by:** 26 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/9696857

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
If these persons had been admitted to practice when they committed their crimes, they would have been permanently disbarred. D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (1981), In re Kerr, 424 A.2d 94 (D.C.1980) (en banc). Like my Brother Ferren, “I believe the same policy, whether eligibility to apply (or reapply) for a lawyer’s license, or permanent ineligibility to practice law, should apply in both situations,” supra at 1137. Unlike my Brother Ferren, however, I think Kerr was and still is correctly decided. I think this court’s ruling today disserves, indeed sullies the legal profession. I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696857. Public record. Not legal advice.