In re Howard
This text of 940 A.2d 130 (In re Howard) 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.
Opinion
Following his stipulation and execution of a Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment, the respondent, Phillip T. Howard, was publically reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Florida for violating Florida Bar Rules 4-3.4(g) and 4-3A(h).
The Board submitted its report on October 2, 2007, which recommends that we impose the functionally identical reciprocal discipline of a public censure.2 Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel have taken any exception to this report and thus our deference to it is heightened. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f); In re Anya, 871 A.2d 1181, 1182 (D.C.2005). In light of this, and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, see In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832 (D.C.1992), we accept the Board’s findings and recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Phillip T. Howard be and hereby is publicly censured.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
940 A.2d 130, 2007 D.C. App. LEXIS 679, 2007 WL 4190476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howard-dc-2007.