# In Re O'Donnell

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · November 26, 1986 · 517 A.2d 1069

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707152

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re James O’DONNELL, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 26, 1986
- **Citations:** 517 A.2d 1069; 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 488
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Newman, Terry, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9707152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that sanction appropriate for an attorney who failed to take action relating to a restaurant’s lease agreement and liquor license

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) for failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries; DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting to form a corporation and to file on behalf of the corporation an application for a liquor license within the specified time, and DR 7-101(A)(l) for deliberate and conscious failure to seek the lawful objectives of his clients despite his full awareness of the extent of those objectives. Respondent has not filed a brief before this court. We have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Board and find its findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. In re Morris, 495 A.2d 1162, 1163 (D.C.1985); D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). Accordingly, we adopt the Board’s findings, which are attached as an appendix to this opinion.
The Board has recommended that respondent be suspended for a year and a day, and that he be required to make restitution of the retainer of $1000 to his clients. This court “shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted.” In re Morris, supra, 495 A.2d at 1163 ; D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). This sanction is in accordance with sanctions imposed in comparable cases. E.g., In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983); In re Fogel, 422 A.2d 966 (D.C.1980).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent shall be suspended for a year and a day, and shall make restitution to his clients of $1000. This order shall take effect thirty days from the date of this opinion.
So ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707152. Public record. Not legal advice.