In re McCoole

791 A.2d 910, 2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 39, 2002 WL 242868
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 21, 2002
DocketNo. 00-BG-1634
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 791 A.2d 910 (In re McCoole) 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 McCoole, 791 A.2d 910, 2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 39, 2002 WL 242868 (D.C. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) recommends the disbarment of respondent, James F. McCoole, from the practice of law in the District of Columbia based upon his three convictions for grand larceny in the second degree in the State of New York. Respondent pleaded guilty to each of these felony offenses.1 After notification of his criminal convictions by Bar Counsel, this court entered an order on January 5, 2001 suspending respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c) and Rule XI, § 11(d), and directed the Board to institute formal proceedings. The criminal offenses for which McCoole was convicted inherently involve moral turpitude and require disbarment under D.C.Code § 11-2503(a). See In re Solerwitz, 601 A.2d 1083, 1084 (D.C.1992) (citing In re Colson, 412 A.2d 1160, 1164 (D.C.1979) (en banc)). The Board recommends disbarment and that the reciprocal discipline proceeding based upon respondent’s disbarment in the State of New Jersey be dismissed as moot. Further, the Board reports that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). See In re Slater, 627 A.2d 508, 509 (D.C.1993). Therefore, it is

ORDERED that respondent, James F. McCoole, be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately. The period of time prescribed by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c) after which respondent may apply for readmission shall not begin to run until respondent files an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). It is further

ORDERED that the reciprocal discipline proceeding based on respondent’s disbarment in the state of New Jersey be dismissed as moot.

So ordered.

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

Related

In re John T. Szymkowicz
195 A.3d 785 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2018)
In re Douglas R. Arntsen
85 A.3d 852 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2014)
In Re Krouner
920 A.2d 1039 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
791 A.2d 910, 2002 D.C. App. LEXIS 39, 2002 WL 242868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mccoole-dc-2002.