In Re Nielsen

768 A.2d 41, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 47, 2001 WL 215943
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 1, 2001·No. 00-BG-1464·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) has concluded that respondent, Kenneth E. Nielsen, Jr., violated Rule 8.4(d) conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct and D.C. BaR R. XI, § 2(b)(3) by failing to respond in a timely fashion to Bar Counsel’s requests for, and the Board’s order to file, a response to an ethical complaint. The Board recommends that respondent be publicly censured for his misconduct.

Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed an exception to the Board’s report and recommendation, which increases this court’s already substantial deference to the Board. See D.C. Bak R. XI, § 9(g)(2). The Board’s findings are supported by the record, and the sanction it recommends is appropriate. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Kenneth E. Nielsen, Jr., be and hereby is publicly censured.

So ordered.

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

In Re Nielsen, 768 A.2d 41, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 47, 2001 WL 215943 (D.C. 2001).

768 A.2d 41 (In Re Nielsen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Artis
883 A.2d 85 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005)
In Re Mabry
851 A.2d 1276 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
In Re Bridges
805 A.2d 233 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2002)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Nielsen
2001 Ohio 1346 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Nielsen
754 N.E.2d 1267 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)