In re Wolff

494 A.2d 932
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 11, 1985·No. No. 84-932·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the petition of respondent for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the opposition of the Bar Counsel and the response of the Board on Professional Responsibility thereto, it is

ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied, and it appearing that the majority of the judges of this Court has voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition of respondent for rehearing en banc is granted and the opinions of April 8, 1985, 490 A.2d 1118, are vacated. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is directed to file a brief (10 copies) within 30 days from the date of this order and Bar Counsel is directed to file a brief (10 copies) within 30 days after the brief of respondent is filed. The Clerk shall schedule this matter for argument before the Court sitting en banc as soon as the business of the Court permits.

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

In re Wolff, 494 A.2d 932 (D.C. 1985).

494 A.2d 932 (In re Wolff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Santacruz
563 F.3d 894 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Matter of Katz
532 A.2d 729 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1987)