In Re Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Mintz · In Re Swanson

2. “[T]he general rule [is] that an issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived or abandoned.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Saville · In re Morton

3. ““1. Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.1, KRPC 3.2, and KRPC 3.4, as detailed below. “2. ‘A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous.’ KRPC 3.1. The District Court concluded that the Respondent’s claims were frivolous and awarded sanctions to the defendants. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.1. “3. An attorney violates KRPC 3.2 if he fails to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client. In this case, the Respondent failed to expedite [the case] he filed against his sister and her attorney. The Respondent failed to comply with discovery requests, the Respondent failed to timely appear in Court for scheduling conference, and the Respondent failed to meet a deadline set by the Court. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 3.2. “4. Lawyers are required to be fair to the opposing party and counsel. See KRPC 3.4(d). Specifically, ‘[a] lawyer shall not ... in pretrial procedure, ... fail to make [a] reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.’ In this case, the Respondent failed to provide responses to discovery as requested by counsel for Ms. Uvodich and as subsequently ordered by the District Court. Therefore, the Hearing ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Harris