In Re Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘[T]he Board may weigh, together with all of the other evidence, an attorney’s explanation for — or conversely inability to explain satisfactorily — the use of a client’s funds in deciding whether Bar Counsel has met its burden of proving dishonest misappropriation by clear and convincing evidence.’”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Brandi S. Nave · In Re Berkowitz

2. “‘Bar Counsel may properly offer the inadequacy (or non-existence) of the attorney’s explanation for the use of client funds as one significant — and even decisive' — factor in proving dishonest misappropriation’, but it [the Thompson Court] limited the significance of that explanation ‘to circumstantial evidence which the Board may consider, along with all the other evidence, in determining whether Bar Counsel has proven dishonesty by clear and convincing evidence.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Berkowitz

3. “whenever a lawyer takes his clients’ funds for any non-de minimis period of time without authorization and without any proper accounting for them, the law creates a rebuttable presumption that the lawyer has dishonestly misappropriated those funds, whereupon the burden of going forward with explanatory evidence shifts to the lawyer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Anderson