In re Moore

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Moore

691 A.2d 1151, 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 53, 1997 WL 138370

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1997

DocketNo. 93-BG-964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 691 A.2d 1151 (In re Moore) 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 Moore, 691 A.2d 1151, 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 53, 1997 WL 138370 (D.C. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Lloyd N. Moore, a tax attorney and managing partner of his law firm, pleaded guilty in June 1993, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of willful failure to file federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1994), a misdemeanor. Upon consideration of his guilty plea, on August 11, 1993, this court suspended Moore from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Moore filed a timely affidavit of compliance pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14.

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) found that respondent was guilty of a “serious crime” under the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals,¹ and that Moore had committed multiple violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in dishonest conduct and misrepresentation, and had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Board also found that Moore’s conduct did [1152]*1152not constitute moral turpitude per se, see In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626 (D.C.1992) (en bane), and therefore Moore is not subject to automatic disbarment under D.C.Code § 2503(a) (1996 Repl.). The Board recommends that Moore be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of three years nunc pro tunc to August 11, 1993, with a showing of fitness required for reinstatement, and recommends that a determination be made at the time Moore applies for reinstatement whether a probationary condition should be imposed.

Neither respondent Moore nor Bar Counsel take exception to the report and recommendation of the Board in this matter. Pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2), we impose the sanctions recommended by the Board; therefore it is

ORDERED that respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for three years, nunc pro tunc to August 11, 1993, with a showing of fitness required for reinstatement. It is further ORDERED that when Moore applies for reinstatement, the Board shall make a determination whether probation and monitoring should be imposed as a condition of reinstatement.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Lloyd N. Moore, a tax attorney and managing partner of his law firm, pleaded guilty in June 1993, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of willful failure to file federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1994), a misdemeanor. Upon consideration of his guilty plea, on August 11, 1993, this court suspended Moore from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Moore filed a timely affidavit of compliance pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14.

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) found that respondent was guilty of a “serious crime” under the Rules of the D.C. Court of Appeals,¹ and that Moore had committed multiple violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) by engaging in dishonest conduct and misrepresentation, and had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Board also found that Moore’s conduct did [1152]*1152not constitute moral turpitude per se, see In re McBride, 602 A.2d 626 (D.C.1992) (en bane), and therefore Moore is not subject to automatic disbarment under D.C.Code § 2503(a) (1996 Repl.). The Board recommends that Moore be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of three years nunc pro tunc to August 11, 1993, with a showing of fitness required for reinstatement, and recommends that a determination be made at the time Moore applies for reinstatement whether a probationary condition should be imposed.

Neither respondent Moore nor Bar Counsel take exception to the report and recommendation of the Board in this matter. Pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2), we impose the sanctions recommended by the Board; therefore it is

ORDERED that respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for three years, nunc pro tunc to August 11, 1993, with a showing of fitness required for reinstatement. It is further ORDERED that when Moore applies for reinstatement, the Board shall make a determination whether probation and monitoring should be imposed as a condition of reinstatement.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 A.2d 1151, 1997 D.C. App. LEXIS 53, 1997 WL 138370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moore-dc-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack