Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Murchison-Smith
Citations: 766 A.2d 559; 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 29; 2001 WL 137897Docket: No. 00-BG-914
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; January 31, 2001; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court
Brett E. Murchison-Smith has been found to have violated Rule 8.4(d) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. Specifically, the violations include failing to refund $1,711.19 in attorney’s fees as ordered by the court, not responding to written inquiries from Bar Counsel, and not complying with an order from the Board to respond to Bar Counsel. The Board on Professional Responsibility characterized the respondent's misconduct as more serious than the charges indicated. As a result, the Board recommended a six-month suspension from practicing law and mandated that the respondent reimburse the estate the specified amount before seeking reinstatement. No exceptions were filed by either Bar Counsel or the respondent, prompting the Board to receive heightened deference in its recommendations. The suspension is affirmed, and the respondent is reminded of the stipulations regarding eligibility for reinstatement as per D.C. Bar R. XI. 14 and D.C. Bar R. XI. 16(c).