TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Disbarment of Moberly

In the Matter of the Petition for the DISBARMENT OF Mark G. MOBERLY, a Minnesota Lawyer

In re Disbarment of Moberly, 319 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1982)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1982
Docket
No. 81-1129
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
319 N.W.2d 7201982 Minn. LEXIS 1583

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Mark G. Moberly was admitted to the practice of law in 1977 and has been a sole practitioner in this state since that time. It is undisputed that he misappropriated some $4,350 of clients’ funds over the period of a year. In addition he admits to negotiating 25 checks on bank accounts which he knew to be closed.

He has made no showing of restitution to his clients and has advanced no mitigating circumstances which justifies a sanction short of disbarment.

Accordingly Respondent Mark G. Moberly is herewith disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Minnesota.

How later courts describe this case

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

1983: 21984: 11985: 11987: 219832026peak 1983 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Petition of Disciplinary Action Against Daffer344 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1984)
  2. In re Discipline of Ray368 N.W.2d 924 (Minn. 1985)
  3. In re Discipline of Bernstein404 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 1987)
  4. In re Disciplinary Action Against Sampson408 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1987)
  5. In re Disciplinary Action Against Austin333 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1983)
  6. In re Austin333 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1983)

Most recent

  1. In re Disciplinary Action Against Sampson408 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. 1987)
  2. In re Discipline of Bernstein404 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. 1987)
  3. In re Discipline of Ray368 N.W.2d 924 (Minn. 1985)
  4. Petition of Disciplinary Action Against Daffer344 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1984)
  5. In re Austin333 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1983)
  6. In re Disciplinary Action Against Austin333 N.W.2d 633 (Minn. 1983)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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