In Re Stiller

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Stiller

7 A.3d 1029, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 670, 2010 WL 4537816

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 2010·No. 95-BG-909·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of petitioners’ petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and respondent’s response thereto, it is

ORDERED by the merits division * that the petition for rehearing is denied. See In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203, 206 (D.C.2001). “(holding Stiller in accord with principle that ‘[t]here is no requirement in either [subsection (b) or (c) of Rule 8.4] that an attorney actually have been convicted of a crime for the rule to apply1).” And it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of petitioners’ petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and respondent’s response thereto, it is

ORDERED by the merits division * that the petition for rehearing is denied. See In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203, 206 (D.C.2001). “(holding Stiller in accord with principle that ‘[t]here is no requirement in either [subsection (b) or (c) of Rule 8.4] that an attorney actually have been convicted of a crime for the rule to apply1).” And it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

In Re Stiller, 7 A.3d 1029, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 670, 2010 WL 4537816 (D.C. 2010).

Pincite

7 A.3d 1029 (In Re Stiller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related