In re Cornish

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Cornish

762 A.2d 43, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 268, 2000 WL 1707306

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2000

DocketNo. 00-BG-836

StatusPublished

This text of 762 A.2d 43 (In re Cornish) 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 Cornish, 762 A.2d 43, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 268, 2000 WL 1707306 (D.C. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On April 15, 1996, this court ordered that Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish, then a member of our Bar, be suspended from practice, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. See In re Cornish, 691 A.2d 156, 157-58 (D.C.1997) (per curiam). Cornish’s suspension resulted from reciprocal proceedings by our Bar Counsel following proceedings in Maryland in which Cornish acknowledged that he was then unable to cope with the demands of the practice of law. Id. at 157.¹

On August 18, 1998, Cornish filed a motion for reinstatement with our Board on Professional Responsibility. On June 30, 2000, the Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cornish had demonstrated his fitness to resume the practice of law. The Board therefore recommended that Cornish be reinstated to the Bar of this court.

Bar Counsel has advised the court that she does not except to the Board’s recommendation. Under the circumstances, the substantial deference that we accord to the Board’s findings and recommendations is even greater. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.1995). Accordingly, Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish is hereby reinstated to the Bar of this court.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

On April 15, 1996, this court ordered that Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish, then a member of our Bar, be suspended from practice, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. See In re Cornish, 691 A.2d 156, 157-58 (D.C.1997) (per curiam). Cornish’s suspension resulted from reciprocal proceedings by our Bar Counsel following proceedings in Maryland in which Cornish acknowledged that he was then unable to cope with the demands of the practice of law. Id. at 157.¹

On August 18, 1998, Cornish filed a motion for reinstatement with our Board on Professional Responsibility. On June 30, 2000, the Board found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cornish had demonstrated his fitness to resume the practice of law. The Board therefore recommended that Cornish be reinstated to the Bar of this court.

Bar Counsel has advised the court that she does not except to the Board’s recommendation. Under the circumstances, the substantial deference that we accord to the Board’s findings and recommendations is even greater. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.1995). Accordingly, Cornell D.M. Judge Cornish is hereby reinstated to the Bar of this court.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 A.2d 43, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 268, 2000 WL 1707306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cornish-dc-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack