In Re Phillips

705 A.2d 690, 1998 WL 20953
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 22, 1998
Docket96-BG-270
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 705 A.2d 690 (In Re Phillips) 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 Phillips, 705 A.2d 690, 1998 WL 20953 (D.C. 1998).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommends that this court impose on respondent a sixty-day suspension from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Respondent filed a false and misleading petition in federal court in Virginia in a drug money forfeiture dispute involving a former client of respondent’s firm, and was convicted of criminal contempt for that conduct. 1 Both respondent and Bar Counsel have informed the court that they take no exception to the Board’s recommendation, 2 which is therefore acted upon by the court pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2).

Accordingly, we adopt the Board’s recommendation and suspend respondent for sixty days from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The suspension shall take effect thirty days from the date of this opinion. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f). We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of Rule XI, § 14, relating to suspended attorneys.

So ordered.

1

. The Board found that respondent had thus violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to tribunal), 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (conduct seriously interfering with the administration of justice).

2

. The Hearing Committee that heard respondent’s case recommended a public censure. Bar Counsel before the Board urged a ninety-day suspension.

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

Related

In Re Guberman
978 A.2d 200 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)
In Re Romansky
938 A.2d 733 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
In re Gonzalez-Perez
917 A.2d 689 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
In Re Harkins
899 A.2d 755 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)
In Re Demos
875 A.2d 636 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005)
In Re Lopes
770 A.2d 561 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2001)
In Re Krouner
748 A.2d 924 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
705 A.2d 690, 1998 WL 20953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-phillips-dc-1998.