In Re Hawn

917 A.2d 693, 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 86, 2007 WL 610906
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 1, 2007·No. 06-BG-1418·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The respondent, Gregory Hawn, falsified his resume and altered his law school transcripts in an attempt to obtain legal employment in California. While he did report his actions to Bar Counsel, it was not until after his misdeeds had been questioned by a prospective employer and his law school. In any event, the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), on review of a Hearing Committee’s report, concluded that respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, and as discipline for this violation the Board recommends that respondent be suspended for 30 days.

Bar Counsel informs us that he takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation, and respondent has not filed any opposition to the Board’s report and recommendation. This lack of opposition severely limits our scope of review and we *694 hereby accept the Board’s recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Gregory Hawn be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty-days. For the purposes of reinstatement, the suspension shall be deemed to run from the date that respondent files an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

So ordered.

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

In Re Hawn, 917 A.2d 693, 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 86, 2007 WL 610906 (D.C. 2007).

917 A.2d 693 (In Re Hawn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Kenneth A. Martin
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014
In re Martin
67 A.3d 1032 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2013)
In Re Guberman
978 A.2d 200 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)
In Re Borthwick
964 A.2d 1280 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)
In Re Scanio
919 A.2d 1137 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)