In Re Cater

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a fitness requirement is justified where the evidence clearly and convincingly raises a “serious doubt,” i.e., “real skepticism,” as to the suspended attorney‟s continuing fitness to practice law
• holding that a fitness requirement is justified where the evidence clearly and convincingly raises a “serious doubt,” i.e., “real skepticism,” as to the suspended attorney‟s continuing fitness to practice law
• adopting \clear and convincing\ evidence standard for reinstatement enhancement, in part, in recognition that a fitness requirement \can transform a thirty-day suspension into one that lasts for years\
• adopting a three- part test for determining whether to impose a fitness requirement when an attorney has failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation
• approving the Board’s proposed test for the imposition of a fitness requirement
• setting forth the standard for imposition of a fitness requirement and finding such requirement warranted where “the respondent has repeatedly evinced indifference .,. toward the disciplinary procedures by which the Bar regulates itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).