 |
|
 |
|
|
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!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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).
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
