In re Shay, No. 99-BG-649.
| Citation | 749 A.2d 142 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-BG-649. |
| Parties | In re Martha Jane SHAY, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
Before SCHWELB, FARRELL, and GLICKMAN, Associate Judges.
The Board on Professional Responsibility has determined that respondent violated numerous Disciplinary Rules (for pre-1991 conduct) and Rules of Professional Conduct (). The crux of the misconduct is a conflict of interest which affected respondent's representation of two individuals in connection with estate planning. The Board recommends that respondent be suspended for ninety days.
Bar Counsel does not except to the Board's report and recommendation, and respondent has withdrawn exceptions previously taken.
This court will accept the Board's findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1). Moreover, we will impose the sanction recommended by the Board "unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." Id. Respondent's withdrawal of her exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation increases this court's already substantial deference to the Board. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C.1997).
We find substantial support in the record for the Board's findings and, accordingly, accept them. Given our heightened deference to the Board's unopposed recommendation, we also accept the sanction recommended by the Board. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Martha Jane Shay is suspended from the practice of the law in the District of Columbia for ninety (90) days. Respondent's attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 relating to suspended attorneys.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Elgin
...see Austin, supra, 858 A.2d at 976; In re Jones-Terrell, 712 A.2d 496 (D.C.1998); and the time span of the misconduct, see In re Shay, 749 A.2d 142 (D.C.2000), republished at 756 A.2d 465 (D.C.2000), together with the Report and Recommendation of the BPR; Ryan, supra, 670 A.2d at 381. We do......
-
In re Hager, 01-BG-995.
...the means . . . . Certainly our Rules of Professional Conduct allow no such flirtation."). In our own jurisdiction, In re Shay, 749 A.2d 142 (D.C.2000) (per curiam), is also enlightening on this point. In Shay, the disciplined attorney represented a husband ("J.C.") and wife ("E.Y."). J.C.,......
-
In re Shay, No. 99-BG-649.
...on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel requesting that the Court append to its per curiam opinion of April 27, 2000, published at 749 A.2d 142, the Report and Recommendation of the Board and cause the opinion and Board report to be republished, respondent's consent motion for leave ......