# Matter of Sablowsky

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · July 29, 1987 · 529 A.2d 289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702325

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Richard B. SABLOWSKY, a Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 29, 1987
- **Citations:** 529 A.2d 289; 1987 D.C. App. LEXIS 396
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rogers
- **Judges:** Nebeker, Ferren, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 1 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/9702325

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702325. Public record. Not legal advice.