Carter v. Sherlock

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Carter v. Sherlock

384 A.2d 1074, 120 R.I. 976, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 863

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 14, 1978

DocketM. P. No. 78-118

StatusPublished

This text of 384 A.2d 1074 (Carter v. Sherlock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Sherlock, 384 A.2d 1074, 120 R.I. 976, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 863 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

The respondent is a member of the Bar of this state. He appeared before us on Tuesday, April 11, 1978, in response to our order directing [977]*977him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure to file a response with this Court’s Disciplinary Board to a complaint filed with the Board by a client in May 1977. The respondent appeared and conceded that, while he had spoken to the Board’s counsel shortly after the complaint had been filed, he had not filed a response even though counsel had sought such a response from him in June and again in July 1977. Our Rule 42-2 makes this disregard of the counsel’s repeated requests grounds for discipline.

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that John F. Sherlock, Jr. is hereby reprimanded for indulging in the practices described herein, and he is to forthwith file a response in which he will set out the facts that will assist the counsel and the Board in discharging their duties under the rules. Failure on the respondent’s part to file the report will result in an order being entered, without any further notice, indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The respondent is a member of the Bar of this state. He appeared before us on Tuesday, April 11, 1978, in response to our order directing [977]*977him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure to file a response with this Court’s Disciplinary Board to a complaint filed with the Board by a client in May 1977. The respondent appeared and conceded that, while he had spoken to the Board’s counsel shortly after the complaint had been filed, he had not filed a response even though counsel had sought such a response from him in June and again in July 1977. Our Rule 42-2 makes this disregard of the counsel’s repeated requests grounds for discipline.

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that John F. Sherlock, Jr. is hereby reprimanded for indulging in the practices described herein, and he is to forthwith file a response in which he will set out the facts that will assist the counsel and the Board in discharging their duties under the rules. Failure on the respondent’s part to file the report will result in an order being entered, without any further notice, indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 A.2d 1074, 120 R.I. 976, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-sherlock-ri-1978.