respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by attempting to sell information to other attorneys to be used as factual evidence in a case in which respondent was not otherwise involved
How later courts described this case
- respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by attempting to sell information to other attorneys to be used as factual evidence in a case in which respondent was not otherwise involved
- attempting to sell information to other attorneys to be used as factual evidence in a case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I agree that there was clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(5) based on the events occurring before Bar Counsel became involved, see opinion of Judge Ferren, Part IA, and that, assuming error by the Board in its apparently inadvertent reliance on events after Bar Counsel’s involvement, there is no need to remand the case for reconsideration by the Board. Arthur v. District of Columbia Nurses’ Examining Board, 459 A.2d 141, 146 (D.C.1983). See evidence set forth in the opinion by Judge Ferren, Part III. I also agree that the Board’s recommended sanction of a six-month suspension is appropriate here. See opinion of Judge Ferren, Part IV. Because it is unnecessary to this appeal to decide the effect of Bar Counsel’s violation of D.C.Bar.R. XI, § 4(3)(b), see opinion of Judge Ferren, Part II note 1,1 do not reach the issue of the effect of that violation on the admissibility of evidence gathered as a result, or the issue whether Bar Counsel’s first obligation upon receiving an informal report of a suspected disciplinary rule violation is educational or investigative.