Home/District of Columbia Court of Appeals/In Re O'Donnell

In Re O'Donnell

517 A.2d 1069, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 488
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 26, 1986
Docket86-1011
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 517 A.2d 1069 (In Re O'Donnell) 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 O'Donnell, 517 A.2d 1069, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 488 (D.C. 1986).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) for failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries; DR 6-101(A)(3) for neglecting to form a corporation and to file on behalf of the corporation an application for a liquor license within the specified time, and DR 7-101(A)(l) for deliberate and conscious failure to seek the lawful objectives of his clients despite his full awareness of the extent of those objectives. Respondent has not filed a brief before this court. We have reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Board and find its findings are supported by substantial evidence of record. In re Morris, 495 A.2d 1162, 1163 (D.C.1985); D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). Accordingly, we adopt the Board’s findings, which are attached as an appendix to this opinion.

The Board has recommended that respondent be suspended for a year and a day, and that he be required to make restitution of the retainer of $1000 to his clients. This court “shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or otherwise would be unwarranted.” In re Morris, supra, 495 A.2d at 1163; D.C. Rules Governing the Bar, Rule XI, § 7(3). This sanction is in accordance with sanctions imposed in comparable cases. E.g., In re Roundtree, 467 A.2d 143, 148 (D.C.1983); In re Fogel, 422 A.2d 966 (D.C.1980).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent shall be suspended for a year and a day, and shall make restitution to his clients of $1000. This order shall take effect thirty days from the date of this opinion.

So ordered.

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

Related

In Re Carter
11 A.3d 1219 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011)
In Re Ukwu
926 A.2d 1106 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
In re Wright
885 A.2d 315 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005)
In re Kitchings
857 A.2d 1059 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
In Re Spiegelman
694 A.2d 59 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997)
In Re Lyles
680 A.2d 408 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
In Re Chisholm
679 A.2d 495 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
In Re Ryan
670 A.2d 375 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
In Re Slosberg
650 A.2d 1329 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1994)
Matter of Robertson
612 A.2d 1236 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1992)
In Re Solomon
599 A.2d 799 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1991)
In Re Lenoir
585 A.2d 771 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1991)
In Re Tinsley
582 A.2d 1192 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
In Re Delate
579 A.2d 1177 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1990)
In Re O'Donnell
517 A.2d 1069 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 A.2d 1069, 1986 D.C. App. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-odonnell-dc-1986.