In re Hemsley

735 A.2d 477, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 211, 1999 WL 695636
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 9, 1999
DocketNo. 98-BG-1193
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 735 A.2d 477 (In re Hemsley) 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 Hemsley, 735 A.2d 477, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 211, 1999 WL 695636 (D.C. 1999).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of this Court’s order of August 17, 1998, which indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, pursuant to Rule XI, § 13(e) of the Rules Governing the Bar, the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that all disciplinary matters pending against respondent be held in abeyance, pending removal of the disability which renders him incompetent to defend these proceedings, and that respondent’s indefinite suspension from the practice of law in this jurisdiction should remain in effect pending his recovery of competency and further order of the Court, the letter from respondent supporting the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, and the letter from Bar Counsel taking no exception to the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is

ORDERED that this Court’s order of August 17, 1998, which suspended respondent indefinitely from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to Rule XI, § 13(e) shall remain in effect pending his recovery of competency and further order of the Court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all disciplinary matters pending against respondent be held in abeyance until further order of the Court pursuant to Rule XI, § 13(c).

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, § 14 concerning his responsibility to notify clients and others of this suspension.

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

Related

In Re Coleman
996 A.2d 820 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
735 A.2d 477, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 211, 1999 WL 695636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hemsley-dc-1999.