Case law

In re Villareal

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

The Board concluded that Mr. … In In re Dobbie, the respondents were charged with disciplinary violations for failing to turn over exculpatory information to the defense in violation of the requirements of Brady v.

Miller v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 2025

Brown, 460 U.S. at 741 & n.6. 3 Justice White also addressed this issue in his dissenting opinion in Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982). … Brown, 460 U.S. at 740.

In Re Morrell

859 A.2d 644 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

XI, § 16(d)(1) and (2), as interpreted in Board Rule 9.1(a)(i) through (v). These factors were first explained in our decision in In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985). … See M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971). 6 . There is a slight difference between factor (3) in the Board’s instructions on the reinstatement questionnaire submitted by Mr.

In Re Eberhart

678 A.2d 1023 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

This matter comes before us on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) that respondent be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a). … Va.Code Ann. § 18.5-111 (Miehie 1995); see Zoretic v.

In re Butler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2025

69 A.3d 390, 397 n.9 (D.C. 2013) (Bar Counsel was not required to call expert witness because whether respondent’s communications were false or misleading did not “require[] technical or specialized knowledge”); Liu v. … See generally, e.g., Miller v. United States, 209 A.3d 75, 80 (D.C. 2019) (declining to address issue that was not adequately briefed on appeal). C.

Castillo v. United States

75 A.3d 157 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2013

Brown v. United States, 27 A.3d 127, 131 (D.C.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). … (the time when Brown was found) than to noon” because “carpet squished with blood” and “Brown had not bled out despite his gaping wounds”); Simmons v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and COLICCHIO PROCTOR, INTERVENOR.

95 A.3d 1284 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Holiday v. … Co. v.

In Re Untalan

619 A.2d 978 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1993

United States v. Carrollo, 30 P.Supp. 3, 6 (W.D.Mo.1939) cited with approval in In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760, 765 (D.C.1990). … dispositions for similar misconduct, available to us. 3 .Under the aegis of North Carolina v.

In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-Kauffman

210 A.3d 775 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2019

See Manago v. District of Columbia, 934 A.2d 925 (D.C. 2007). When Ms. Ekekwe- Kauffman notified Ms. … Curtis v. Gordon, 980 A.2d 1238, 1246 (D.C. 2009) (quoting Amidon v. Amidon, 280 A.2d 82, 84 (D.C. 1971)).

District of Columbia Bar v. Kleindienst

345 A.2d 146 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1975

The Board found specifically that respondent “was guilty of direct and repeated misrepresentations in answering persistent inquiries about White House involvement in Justice Department litigation against ITT.” *147 The Board … Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 , 37 S.Ct. 377 , 61 L.Ed. 585 ; Matter of Durant, 80 Conn. 140, 147 , 67 A. 497 , 10 Ann.Cas. 539. Whenever the condition is broken the privilege is lost.

Friends of McMillan Park and DC for Reasonable Development v. DC Zoning Commission

211 A.3d 139 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2019

See generally Lange v. … See, e.g., Arthur v.

In Re Anderson

778 A.2d 330 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2001

The Board disagrees. … Cf., e.g., Faunteroy v. United States, 413 A.2d 1294, 1299 (D.C.1980) ("The touchstone of gross negligence is recklessness.”). 5 .

In re Shepherd

870 A.2d 67 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2005

Bar Counsel takes no exception to the Board’s report. We adopt the Board’s recommendation. … Instead, Shepherd relies on Bracy v.

Matter of Miller

553 A.2d 201 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1989

MACK, Associate Judge: On this appeal the basic issue is whether a sanction of one year’s suspension recommended by the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) for a violation by respondent of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 … The Board avoids this question by concluding that even if the lower standard is applicable, respondent has failed to meet this burden. Other courts have adopted the higher standard. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

Green Leaves Restaurant, Inc. v. 617 H Street Associates

974 A.2d 222 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2009

Truitt v. … See, e.g., Brown v.

Rayner v. Yale Steam Laundry Condo. Ass'n.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2023

The first provision the trial court relied on, Section II.B, specifies that “[t]he Board[15] may determine the specific manner in which the provisions of (quoting Washkoviak v. … R. 60(b)(1)). 60 Brown v.

Chambers v. District of Columbia

89 A.2d 636 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1952

Tepel v. Sima, 213 Minn. 526 , 7 N.W.2d 532, 535 . See also Martin v. Wolfson, 218 Minn. 557 , 16 N.W.2d 884 . … In Chambers v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 80 A.2d 397 , we dismissed this appeal, but our ruling was reversed and the case remanded to us for a hearing on the merits. Chambers v.

Poteat v. United States

363 A.2d 295 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1976

Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 244 A.2d 487, 489 (1968); Gilmore v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 348-49 , 273 F.2d 79, 83-84 (1959). … See Benton v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 158 , 188 F.2d 625 (1951).

In Re Berger

737 A.2d 1033 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 1999

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Awuah, 346 Md. 420 , 697 A.2d 446, 454 (1997). … Disciplinary Board, and argued, pursuant to D.C.

Irick v. United States

565 A.2d 26 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1989

See Donnelly v. … In Kleinbart v.