TERRI BURKE v. MICHELLE SOLES

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that due process is satisfied when “the Specification of Charges gave respondent notice of the specific rules she allegedly violated, as well as notice of the conduct underlying the alleged violations”
• holding that due process is satisfied when “the Specification of Charges gave respondent notice of the specific rules she allegedly violated, as well as notice of the conduct underlying the alleged violations”
• holding that attorney licensed in D.C. but practicing in other jurisdictions “is subject to the disciplinary authority of [the D.C.] jurisdiction, regardless of where [her] conduct occurs.” (second alteration in original) (citing D.C. R. PROF’L CONDUCT 8.5(a)
• rejecting argument that we lack authority to discipline a member of the D.C. Bar for their out-of-District conduct
• Bar Counsel was not required to call expert witness because whether respondent’s communications were false or misleading did not “require[] technical or specialized knowledge”
• Bar Counsel was not required to call expert witness because whether respondent’s communications were false or misleading did not “require[] technical or specialized knowledge”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).