In re Sherlock v. Grigsby

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Sherlock v. Grigsby

167 A.3d 551, 2017 WL 3568392, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 220

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided August 17, 2017·No. 16-BG-1069·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that respondent engaged in intentional misappropriation and recommends that the-respondent be disbarred. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has excepted to that conclusion and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2).

Accordingly, it-is ORDERED that respondent Sherlock V. Grigsby is' hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of disbarment will begin to run when Mr. Grigsby has filed an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that respondent engaged in intentional misappropriation and recommends that the-respondent be disbarred. Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has excepted to that conclusion and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2).

Accordingly, it-is ORDERED that respondent Sherlock V. Grigsby is' hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of disbarment will begin to run when Mr. Grigsby has filed an affidavit demonstrating full compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).

In re Sherlock v. Grigsby, 167 A.3d 551, 2017 WL 3568392, 2017 D.C. App. LEXIS 220 (D.C. 2017).

Pincite

167 A.3d 551 (In re Sherlock v. Grigsby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.