Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerappealtestimonyappellant

damagesattorneylawyertestimonyappellant

Related Cases

Levine v. Committee on Admissions and Grievances of U. S. District Court for District of Columbia, 328 F.2d 519, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 218

Facts

The appellant was disbarred after being found guilty of soliciting personal injury claims through individuals who were not licensed attorneys. The charges included multiple instances of solicitation where the appellant sought to represent individuals involved in personal injury accidents, agreeing to compensate the solicitors. The District Court found that unethical solicitation was proven in four out of six instances presented by the Committee on Admissions and Grievances.

The charges were that on or about October 11, 1960, and on specified dates thereafter, appellant, through the agency or use of two men who were not lawyers solicited named persons who had been involved in personal injury accidents to employ appellant as their attorney to seek damages.

Issue

Whether the disbarment of the attorney for solicitation of personal injury claims through non-lawyers was justified.

Whether the disbarment of the attorney for solicitation of personal injury claims through agency of persons who were not lawyers would not be disturbed.

Rule

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has the authority to suspend or expel a member of its bar for professional misconduct.

Sections 11-1301 and 11-1302, D.C.Code, 1961, empower the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ‘in general term’ to suspend from practice or expel a member of its bar for professional misconduct.

Analysis

The court reviewed the evidence presented, which included testimony from a former convict, and found it to be corroborated and convincing. The court determined that the attorney's actions were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate pattern of unethical behavior. Despite the Committee's lack of a strong recommendation for disbarment, the court felt compelled to uphold the disbarment due to the serious nature of the misconduct.

We have considered the evidence, and though in substantial part it is that of a former convict and person of ill repute his testimony is corroborated. It does not stand alone. The evidence as a whole is convincing that the conduct charged and found did indeed occur.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment disbarring the attorney, concluding that the evidence supported the findings of professional misconduct.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the District Court, as it upheld the disbarment of the attorney based on substantial evidence of unethical conduct.

We would not be justified, in view of the conduct of appellant, in superimposing a different judgment of our own as to the remedy.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Matter of John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 562 N.E.2d 69, 59 USLW 2329

Lysick v. Walcom, 258 Cal.App.2d 136, 65 Cal.Rptr. 406, 28 A.L.R.3d 368

Rusinow v. Kamara, 920 F.Supp. 69

Whiteside v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1021

Hawkins v. King County, Dept. of Rehabilitative Services, Division of Involuntary Treatment Services, 24 Wash.App. 338, 602 P.2d 361