# In Re Manville

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 28, 1985 · 494 A.2d 1289

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762442

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Daniel E. MANVILLE an Applicant for Admission to the Bar of This Court
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 28, 1985
- **Citations:** 494 A.2d 1289; 1985 D.C. App. LEXIS 422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Nebeker, Pryor, Fer-Ren, Belson, Ne-Beker, MacK, Newman, Ferren, Terry, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9762442

## Opinion text

On Consideration of Rehearing en Dane ORDER
Before PRYOR, Chief Judge, and NE-BEKER, MACK, NEWMAN, FERREN, BELSON, TERRY and ROGERS, Associate Judges.
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the call for sua sponte rehearing en banc, and it appearing that a majority of the judges has voted not to rehear this case en banc, it is
ORDERED that the call for sua sponte rehearing en banc is denied.
NEBEKER, Associate Judge,
with whom NEWMAN and TERRY, Associate Judges, join:
Statement of reasons for voting for sua sponte rehearing en banc. I called, sua sponte, for a vote to rehear this case en banc when the division opinion was circulated to the rest of the court before release. I did so because this applicant for admission to the bar is plainly unfit for lack of moral character.
The division opinion, despite the effort to address both sides of the question, inescapably implies that unless there is something else bad to say about Manville, either he should be admitted or the question is too close to decide without more facts. Neither is, or should be, the case.
Manville has led a life of crime during his adulthood. He has been an armed narcotics purveyor and user. He turned enforcer and killed by chloroform to cover his violent effort. Despite the plea bargain, it is apparent that the crime was a murder committed during commission of a felony, robbery. In the District of Columbia this is felony murder punishable by twenty years to life imprisonment.
This court does the public, our bar, and our Admissions Committee an injustice when it hedges on these facts and orders further investigation. With the bar in less than high public repute, it is a tragedy that we do not, with resolve, plainly hold that *1283 this man has forfeited any claim to moral character or fitness for the high calling of the bar.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762442. Public record. Not legal advice.