In re Stovell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Stovell

187 A.3d 554

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided June 28, 2018·No. No. 18–BG–115·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Leicester B. Stovell be disbarred based on Hearing Committee findings that he intentionally misappropriated client funds entrusted to him. See In re Edwards , 990 A.2d 501, 518-19 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Addams , 579 A.2d 190, 193 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). No exceptions having been filed to the Board's report, we impose the recommended discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Leicester B. Stovell is hereby disbarred. For purposes of reinstatement the period of respondent's disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

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

Per Curiam:

In this case, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Leicester B. Stovell be disbarred based on Hearing Committee findings that he intentionally misappropriated client funds entrusted to him. See In re Edwards , 990 A.2d 501, 518-19 (D.C. 2010) ; In re Addams , 579 A.2d 190, 193 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). No exceptions having been filed to the Board's report, we impose the recommended discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Leicester B. Stovell is hereby disbarred. For purposes of reinstatement the period of respondent's disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

In re Stovell, 187 A.3d 554 (D.C. 2018).

Pincite

187 A.3d 554 (In re Stovell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related