District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 3/18/1999
In Re Mitchell
Citations
- 727 A.2d 308
- 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 60
- 1999 WL 144117
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It is [Disciplinary] Counsel‟s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “It is [Disciplinary] Counsel‟s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “It is [ODC’s] burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “It is [Disciplinary] Counsel’s burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- public censure for violation of Rules 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Steadman, Ruiz, Newman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re CaterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2005-11-23· cited 94×
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2001-08-02· cited 90×
- In Re ManceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2009-10-29· cited 32×
- In Re EdwardsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2002-10-03· cited 15×
- In Re ArnejaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2002-01-31· cited 15×
- In Re EdwardsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2010-03-18· cited 11×
- In Re OutlawDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2007-03-01· cited 10×
- In Re MitchellDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2003-05-08· cited 5×
- In Re ClowerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2003-09-18· cited 2×
- In Re BrownDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2006-01-19· cited 1×
- In re Nathaniel H.SpeightsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2017-11-22
- In re SpeightsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2017-11-22
- Masika v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2021-12-02
- In re TeitelbaumDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2023-10-05
- In re WallaceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2025-12-11
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Begier v. Internal Revenue ServiceSupreme Court· 1990-06-04· cited 701×
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-07-31· cited 161×
- Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1980-10-17· cited 114×
- In Re GoffeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1994-05-05· cited 107×
- In Re RyanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1996-01-29· cited 58×
- In Re RebackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1985-01-31· cited 46×
- Matter of WilliamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1983-07-14· cited 39×
- In Re RosenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1984-08-06· cited 37×
- Matter of ThorupDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1981-07-07· cited 36×
- In Re BernsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1998-01-22· cited 30×
- In Re DrewDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1997-05-08· cited 27×
- In Re HaarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1997-07-17· cited 24×
- Matter of JonesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-09-04· cited 23×
- In Re RossDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1995-05-18· cited 21×
- In Re DunietzDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1996-12-31· cited 21×
- Andolsun v. Berlitz Schools of Languages of America, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1964-01-24· cited 18×
- Matter of AusternDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1987-04-22· cited 13×
- Rathbone v. Lake (In Re Consolidated Partners Investment Co.)N.D. Ohio· 1993-07-26· cited 11×
- In Re ClarkS.D. Ohio· 1987-10-09· cited 9×
- In Re MooreDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1997-11-06· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.