TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re O'Brien

In Re Eileen O’BRIEN, Respondent. a Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re O'Brien, 665 A.2d 662 (D.C. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 2, 1995
Docket
No. 93-BG-1520
Judges
Steadman and Reid, Associate Judges, and MacK, Senior Judge
Citations
665 A.2d 6621995 D.C. App. LEXIS 1981995 WL 583707
Cited by 6

Opinion — Per Curiam

ORDER PER CURIAM.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland placed respondent on inactive status by consent, respondent having acknowledged that “at the present time she is unable to cope with the demands of the practice of law.” We treat such an action as one warranting reciprocal discipline and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may and should be imposed pursuant to D.C.Bar R. XI, § 13(e).

In re Samuels, 648 A.2d 943 (D.C.1994). Accordingly, pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which respondent has filed no exception, it is ORDERED that Eileen O’Brien is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Reinstatement shall be governed by the terms of D.C.Bar R. XI, § 13(g) (attorney eligible for reinstatement after one year, upon showing “by the attorney, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has ended and that the attorney is fit to resume the practice of law”). Respondent’s attention is drawn to the provisions of D.C.Bar R. XI, § 14(g), requiring the filing of an affidavit by suspended attorneys, and § 16, dealing with reinstatement and the effect thereon of a failure to file the required affidavit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1996: 41997: 219962026peak 1996 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Cornish691 A.2d 156 (D.C. 1997)
  2. In re Roxborough675 A.2d 950 (D.C. 1996)
  3. In re Dick683 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1996)
  4. In re Clancy675 A.2d 493 (D.C. 1996)
  5. In re Nelson677 A.2d 509 (D.C. 1996)
  6. Winkler697 A.2d 1200 (D.C. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Winkler697 A.2d 1200 (D.C. 1997)
  2. In re Cornish691 A.2d 156 (D.C. 1997)
  3. In re Dick683 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1996)
  4. In re Nelson677 A.2d 509 (D.C. 1996)
  5. In re Clancy675 A.2d 493 (D.C. 1996)
  6. In re Roxborough675 A.2d 950 (D.C. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re Samuels, 648 A.2d 943 (D.C. 1994) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list