In re Brown

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Brown

694 A.2d 886, 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 114, 1997 WL 290156

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1997

DocketNo. 96-BG-1345

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 694 A.2d 886 (In re Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brown, 694 A.2d 886, 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 114, 1997 WL 290156 (D.C. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this reciprocal discipline proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent be suspended for sixty days and required to show fitness before he is allowed to return to the practice of law in this jurisdiction.

* Respondent, whom we suspended pending final disposition of this matter, does not object to that sanction, and Bar Counsel is in accord. Therefore,

[887]*887It is ORDERED that respondent, Warren E. Brown, shall be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days to begin when he has filed the affidavit required by D.C-App. R. XI, § 14(g). In the meantime, the interim suspension ordered by this court shall continue. Before respondent is readmitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia, he shall demonstrate his fitness to practice law.

As the Board noted, the record is skimpy as to the precise conduct for which respondent was disciplined in Maryland, but it appears to have involved neglect of fiduciary duties as attorney in fact for an incompetent individual and as guardian of a disabled person.

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