In Re Nielsen

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Nielsen

768 A.2d 41, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 47, 2001 WL 215943

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 2001

Docket00-BG-1464

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 A.2d 41, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 47, 2001 WL 215943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nielsen-dc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack