In Re Schmidt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Schmidt , the respondent voluntarily surrendered her- license to practice after having 1) forged a deceased client’s signature to his will; 2) forged the signatures of the witnesses to the will; 3) notarized the forged signatures; 4) offered the forged will for probate; 5) transported witnesses to testify in support of the will; and 6) attempted to settle the matter in part to avoid disclosure of the forgeries. The court denied respondent’s petition for reinstatement citing the panel’s findings that the respondent had committed very serious ethical violations. “The most significant differences between Schmidt and this case are the following: “1. Ms. Schmidt forged the signature of the decedent and the witnesses and then offered the document for probate. She falsely signed a document purporting to be the will.of a decedent, which it was not. The facts set out in the affidavit to which respondent signed his client’s name had been verified by the client and were consistent with deposition testimony already before the court. “2. The effect of Ms. Schmidt’s acts, had she been successful, would have been to cause an invalid will to be probated, changing the disposition of the decedent’s assets and damaging other persons. There was really no effect whatsoever caused by the acts of the respondent. “3. Ms. Schmidt attempted to secure perjured testimony. “4. Ms. Schmidt not only did not attempt to remedy her misconduct, she tried to cover it up. Respondent took remedial measures wi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Grant · In Re Caller