Case law

In Re Devaney

870 A.2d 53 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2005

PER CURIAM: The District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommends that this court find that respondent, William B. … client’s estate); In re Olson, 358 N.W.2d 662 (Minn.1984) (attorney disbarred for using power of attorney to draft documents leaving his comatose sister-in-law’s entire estate to himself); Comm. on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v.

Wright v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

924 A.2d 284 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 3, 2007

Wright argues that the Compensation Review Board (“Review Board”) erroneously applied our decision in Estate of Underwood v. … Bank, FSB v.

In re Kelly

816 A.2d 52 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2003

XI, §§ 10(c) and 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”). … Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelly, 565 Pa. 254 , 772 A.2d 955 (2001). .In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036 (D.C.1991). .

Owens v. District of Columbia

993 A.2d 1085 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2010

Brown v. District of Columbia, 853 A.2d 733, 736 (D.C.2004); District of Columbia v. Dunmore, 662 A.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C.1995) (same). … See D.C.Code § 2-1403.16(a); see also Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1313 (D.C.1981) (under the DCHRA, complainant free to choose among "alternative avenues of redress — administrative or judicial”). 5 .

In Re Saul

671 A.2d 461 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1996

V 1993), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Saul, No. 93-0108-0001 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 1993). … But then, in October 1995, respondent withdrew his exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, thereby withdrawing as well any objection contained in his earlier filed briefs.

In Re Chasnoff

827 A.2d 808 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2003

Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Chasnoff, 366 Md. 250 , 783 A.2d 224 (2001). … XI, § 11(d), 1 and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board recommends that we impose reciprocal discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension with a fitness requirement.

In Re Wright

702 A.2d 1251 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1997

DePass in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, styled Derrick Anthony DePass v. United States, C.A. … Respondent was served with a copy of the Board’s order. However, Respondent has never responded to the Board’s order.

In Re Fogel

728 A.2d 668 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

“Because [Bar Counsel] has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, this court’s already considerable deference to the Board’s determination ... is enhanced.” … See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)(guilty plea with assertion of factual innocence). 2 . Tr. 25-26 (Robinson); 45-47 (Garber); 61-65 (Ratner); 120-23 (Jacobs).

In Re Lee

706 A.2d 1032 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1998

United States v. Lee, 485 F.2d 41 (4th Cir.1973). He was sentenced to two years of incarceration. On March 19, 1990, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement with this Board. … Bar Counsel’s Position Bar Counsel opposed the Petition for Reinstatement, and urged that the Board adopt *1035 the Hearing Committee’s recommendation that it be denied. V.

Matter of Thorup

432 A.2d 1221 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1981

[Internal Rules of Board on Professional Responsibility chapter 8, No. 5.] The courts have generally held that the burden of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings is on the proponent. Charlton v. … Thornton v. United States, D.C.App., 357 A.2d 429, 436 (1976); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295, 299 (1973).

In Re Casalino

697 A.2d 11 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1997

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Casalino, 335 Md. 446 , 644 A.2d 43 (1994). … We therefore agreed with the Board that Mr.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Nello L. Teer Co.

618 A.2d 128 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1992

See United States v. … See United States v.

Mozelle v. United States

310 A.2d 213 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1973

In United States v. … Brown, D.C.App., 309 A.2d 256 (1973), the dismissal of two indictments brought under this statute was affirmed, the facts alleged in the particulars of such indictments being very similar to those proved here.

Mitchell v. Allied Cab Company

133 A.2d 477 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1957

Mitchell was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law on the authority of Brown v. … Brown v. Clancy, 1945, D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 296, 297 . 5 . Id. 43 A.2d at page 298 .

Ricciardi v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 2026

Ass’n v. … See Niblock v.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Inc. v. Akilu Habte

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2023

v. … no controversy related to the legitimacy of the board as a whole or subsequent elections); Akina v.

In Re Barneys

861 A.2d 1270 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2004

Maryland Rule 16-701(e); see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Barneys, 370 Md. 566 , 805 A.2d 1040 (2002) {Barneys I). … We reject these arguments and accept the Board’s recommendation. I.

Bourn v. United States

567 A.2d 1312 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1989

Brown, supra, 288 A.2d at 456 (quoting Jett v. Jett, 221 A.2d 925, 927 (D.C.1966)). … See Brown v. United States, 542 A.2d 1231 (D.C.1988); Briscoe v. United States, 528 A.2d 1243 (D.C.1987).

District of Columbia v. Metropolitan Railroad

8 App. D.C. 322 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1896

The case of State v. Winona, 21 Minn. 472 , and State v. Southern Minn. … And Brooks v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 443 , and Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.

1230-1250 Twenty-Third Street Condominium Unit Owners Ass'n v. Bolandz

978 A.2d 1188 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2009

(quoting Maybin v. … Bolandz explained to the trial court that this law firm was involved in pursuing a claim against a Board member (which was not part of Count II), and withdrew those fees from his fee request. . In Chang v.