Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

934 A.2d 930

In re Cannon

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided November 1, 2007

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 2007-11-01

Cited by 15 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016

13 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-11-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2On consideration of the affidavit of N. Carl Cannon, wherein he consents to disbarment from the Bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of Rule XI of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this Court, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility with respect thereto, and respondent’s motion for nunc pro tunc treatment of respondent’s disbarment to August 14, 2006, it is this 1st day of November, 2007

¶3ORDERED that respondent’s motion for nunc pro tunc treatment of respondent’s disbarment to August 14, 2006, is denied. It is

¶4FURTHER ORDERED that the said N. Carl Cannon, is hereby disbarred by consent effective forthwith. The effective date of respondent’s disbarment shall run, for reinstatement purposes, from the date respondent files his affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

¶5The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the Court or upon written consent of the respondent.

¶6The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving the respondent notice of the provisions of Rule XI, § 14(g), and § 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply with these provisions.

/934/a2d/930 · .json · Public domain