District of Columbia, June, 2007, State Case law

Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!

State Courts - District of Columbia - June 14, 2007

Banks v. United States, No. 04-SP-789, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Individual was held to be in criminal contempt because the acts he engaged in fell under the authority of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to regulate the practice of law in the District of Columbia, and the individual violated a court order prohibiting him from holding himself out as authorized to practice law in the District of Columbia.

Search Cases for Free

Frausto v. United States Dep't of Commerce, No. 05-AA-472, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Decision by the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings was reversed and remanded because an administrative law judge abused its discretion in denying a former employee's motion for relief under D.C. Mun. Reg. tit. 1, ? 2833.2.

Search Cases for Free

In re Don Aimar, No. 06-BG-537, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Attorney was suspended, with the stay suspended, in a proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI, ? 11 because there was no miscarriage of justice in the original proceeding, the discipline imposed in the original proceeding was within the range of sanctions that would have been imposed in the District of Columbia, and the record supported the suspension.

Search Cases for Free

In re Michael L. Avery, No. 07-BG-130, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Attorney was publicly censured because the reviewing court gave heightened deference to the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation under D.C. Bar R. XI, ? 9(g)(2) as no exception was filed, and substantial support existed for the Board's findings under D.C. Bar R. XI, ? 9(g)(1).

Search Cases for Free

In re Michael P. Greenwald, No. 06-BG-1251, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Substantially different reciprocal discipline of a six-month suspension was imposed on an attorney instead of the 60-day suspension imposed in the original proceeding because in the District of Columbia, the usual sanction for negligent misappropriation by an attorney, even with related violations, was a six-month suspension.

Search Cases for Free

WMATA v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Servs., No. 06-AA-27, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Compensation Review Board properly reviewed the findings of an administrative law judge (ALJ) in a worker's compensation case, but because the Board was not authorized under D.C. Code ? 32-1521.01(d)(2)(A) to issue a compensation order, the decision of the Board was reversed, and the case was remanded so that the ALJ could amend his order.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal