In re Murrell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Murrell

649 A.2d 563, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 202, 1994 WL 621206

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

DocketNo. 94-BG-59

StatusPublished

This text of 649 A.2d 563 (In re Murrell) 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 Murrell, 649 A.2d 563, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 202, 1994 WL 621206 (D.C. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility, in agreement with a Hearing Committee, recommends that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Bar Counsel has hot opposed the recommendation. The Board concluded, in accordance with D.C.Bar R. XI, § 13(g), that respondent had shown by clear and convincing evidence that his disability has ended and that he is fit to resume the practice of law. For the reasons stated by the Board, we agree with this conclusion. See, e.g., In re Harrison, 511 A.2d 16, 18 (D.C.1986) (court makes ultimate determination whether attorney meets criteria for reinstatement, but gives “great weight” to recommendations of Board and Hearing Committee). Accordingly, the petition for reinstatement is granted.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility, in agreement with a Hearing Committee, recommends that respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Bar Counsel has hot opposed the recommendation. The Board concluded, in accordance with D.C.Bar R. XI, § 13(g), that respondent had shown by clear and convincing evidence that his disability has ended and that he is fit to resume the practice of law. For the reasons stated by the Board, we agree with this conclusion. See, e.g., In re Harrison, 511 A.2d 16, 18 (D.C.1986) (court makes ultimate determination whether attorney meets criteria for reinstatement, but gives “great weight” to recommendations of Board and Hearing Committee). Accordingly, the petition for reinstatement is granted.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 A.2d 563, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 202, 1994 WL 621206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-murrell-dc-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack