In re Dreier

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Dreier

601 A.2d 1084, 1992 WL 30143

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 1992

DocketNo. 90-1536

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 601 A.2d 1084 (In re Dreier) 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 Dreier, 601 A.2d 1084, 1992 WL 30143 (D.C. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this attorney discipline case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended the imposition of reciprocal discipline, namely, that the court publicly censure respondent for disciplinary violations which resulted in a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The New Jersey Court found that respondent had failed to act with reasonable diligence in his capacity as a trustee and had failed to communicate with the beneficiary of the trust. Our Board on Professional Responsibility, which received no submission from respondent, determined that the misconduct sanctioned by New Jersey would be misconduct in the District of Columbia, specifically, that it violated DR 6-101(A)(3), applicable at the time of respondent’s conduct, which provided that a lawyer shall not “neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.” Respondent has not challenged that determination in this court; nor has he questioned the Board’s recommendation of the sanction of public censure. See D.C.Bar R. XI, § 3(a)(3). Applying the standard of review set forth in D.C.Bar R. XI, § 9(g), we adopt the Board’s recommendation of reciprocal discipline and the particular sanction proposed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Harry Dreier be, and he hereby is, publicly censured.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this attorney discipline case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended the imposition of reciprocal discipline, namely, that the court publicly censure respondent for disciplinary violations which resulted in a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The New Jersey Court found that respondent had failed to act with reasonable diligence in his capacity as a trustee and had failed to communicate with the beneficiary of the trust. Our Board on Professional Responsibility, which received no submission from respondent, determined that the misconduct sanctioned by New Jersey would be misconduct in the District of Columbia, specifically, that it violated DR 6-101(A)(3), applicable at the time of respondent’s conduct, which provided that a lawyer shall not “neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.” Respondent has not challenged that determination in this court; nor has he questioned the Board’s recommendation of the sanction of public censure. See D.C.Bar R. XI, § 3(a)(3). Applying the standard of review set forth in D.C.Bar R. XI, § 9(g), we adopt the Board’s recommendation of reciprocal discipline and the particular sanction proposed.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Harry Dreier be, and he hereby is, publicly censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 A.2d 1084, 1992 WL 30143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dreier-dc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack