In Re REYNOLDS

649 A.2d 818, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 206, 1994 WL 621208
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 7, 1994
Docket92-BG-1492
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 649 A.2d 818 (In Re REYNOLDS) 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 REYNOLDS, 649 A.2d 818, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 206, 1994 WL 621208 (D.C. 1994).

Opinions

Opinion for the court

PER CURIAM.

Concurring opinion by Judge FARRELL, with whom TERRY, Associate Judge, joins, at page 3.

[819]*819Separate statement by Judge SULLIVAN at page-.

PER CURIAM:

This disciplinary matter is before the court on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board), to which respondent and Bar Counsel concur, that the reciprocal case against appellant should be dismissed. The factual and procedural history of this matter are set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the Board, which we incorporate by reference and attach hereto as an appendix. Three members of the Board dissented in a separate opinion which is also attached.

We review the Board’s recommendation in accordance with D.C.App.R. XI, § 9(g) (1993), which provides, in part, as follows:

the Court shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record, and shall adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.

Id. See also In re Hutchinson, 534 A.2d 919, 924 (D.C.1987). Substantially for the reasons set forth in the report, we conclude that the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Board’s recommendation is appropriate. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings commenced against Arthur M. Reynolds, Jr. are hereby dismissed.

So ordered.

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

Related

In Re White
11 A.3d 1226 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011)
In Re Reynolds
867 A.2d 977 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2005)
In Re Dortch
860 A.2d 346 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
In Re Marshall
762 A.2d 530 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2000)
In Re Mason
736 A.2d 1019 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1999)
In Re Hopkins
677 A.2d 55 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1996)
In Re Goldsborough
654 A.2d 1285 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
649 A.2d 818, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 206, 1994 WL 621208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reynolds-dc-1994.