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

complianceprobationrespondent

attorneyprobationrespondent

Related Cases

People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass’n v. Hillyer, 90 Colo. 436, 9 P.2d 1118 (Mem)

Facts

On March 9, 1931, the respondent was disbarred from practicing law. Following this, on January 18, 1932, he filed a petition for reinstatement, which was referred to the Colorado Bar Association's committee on grievances. The committee reviewed the petition, considered various recommendations and one protest, and interviewed the respondent before making its recommendation.

January 18, 1932, there was filed in this court on his behalf a petition for his reinstatement, which petition was referred to the committee on grievances of the Colorado Bar Association for its investigation and report.

Issue

Whether the respondent should be reinstated to practice law after disbarment.

Rule

The court has the authority to suspend a disbarment judgment and allow for reinstatement under certain conditions.

Analysis

The court considered the committee's recommendation for reinstatement, which was based on a thorough investigation and the respondent's compliance with the conditions set forth. The court found good cause to suspend the disbarment judgment and allow the respondent to practice law again, albeit on probation.

The committee, having carefully considered the said petition and numerous recommendations in support thereof, and one protest in opposition thereto, and having again interviewed respondent, reported to this court, and recommended that said respondent be reinstated, on condition, and for a period of one year, on probation.

Conclusion

The court ordered that the disbarment judgment be suspended and permitted the respondent to resume practicing law under probationary conditions.

Now therefore, upon consideration of the foregoing and for good cause shown, it is ordered that this court's jdugment of disbarment herein be, and the same is hereby suspended, and that said respondent be, and he hereby is, permitted to resume and exercise his said office as an attorney at law, all until the further order of the court in the premises.

Who won?

The respondent prevailed in the case as the court granted his petition for reinstatement, allowing him to practice law again under probation.

The court ultimately decided to suspend the disbarment judgment and allow the respondent to resume practicing law under certain conditions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321, 61 USLW 4749

Bommarito v. U.S., 61 F.2d 355

Hair Industry, Ltd. v. United States., 381 U.S. 950, 85 S.Ct. 1804, 14 L.Ed.2d 724

Hopt v. People, 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262

George v. People, 167 Ill. 447, 47 N.E. 741