In re Cooper

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Cooper

659 A.2d 1263, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 124, 1995 WL 378829

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided June 26, 1995·No. No. 94-BG-1394·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the record herein and of the unanimous Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that Samuel Cooper III, previously sanctioned by order of this court, 613 A.2d 938 (D.C.1992), has by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d) met the condition of proof of rehabilitation [1264] imposed by said order and that he accordingly should be reinstated as a member of the bar of this court, it is

ORDERED that Samuel Cooper III be, and he hereby is, reinstated as a member of the bar of this court.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the record herein and of the unanimous Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that Samuel Cooper III, previously sanctioned by order of this court, 613 A.2d 938 (D.C.1992), has by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d) met the condition of proof of rehabilitation [1264] imposed by said order and that he accordingly should be reinstated as a member of the bar of this court, it is

ORDERED that Samuel Cooper III be, and he hereby is, reinstated as a member of the bar of this court.

In re Cooper, 659 A.2d 1263, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 124, 1995 WL 378829 (D.C. 1995).

Pincite

659 A.2d 1263 (In re Cooper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related