Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Leisurely mills of legal discipline

This from Mike Frisch of Georgetown at Legal Profession Blog (Aug. 6): The D. C. Court of Appeals disbarred [NB: should be “suspended for three years”, as commenter Richard Harrison points out] an attorney last week. The case involved acts of dishonesty including forgery and would be unremarkable but for the amount of time it […]

This from Mike Frisch of Georgetown at Legal Profession Blog (Aug. 6):

The D. C. Court of Appeals disbarred [NB: should be “suspended for three years”, as commenter Richard Harrison points out] an attorney last week. The case involved acts of dishonesty including forgery and would be unremarkable but for the amount of time it took to resolve the matter. The firm that had reported the misconduct did so in 1997. Disciplinary charges — which were essentially uncontested — were filed in February 1999. It took 8 1/2 years for the D.C. bar disciplinary system to work its magic — and the lawyer was free to practice throughout that time. Most of the time was taken by the hearing committee (3 1/2 years) and the court (over three years from argument to disposition).

Filed under:

3 Comments

  • The opinion expressly says he is NOT disbarred, but suspended for three years.

  • Thanks, fixed now. I should have caught it in the first place.

  • I disagree slightly with the above commenter. Mr. Slaughter is “suspended with fitness,” which means that after the three year period is up, the attorney must affirmatively prove to the D.C. Court of Appeals that he has mended his ways and is now ethical. While it is not exactly the same as disbarment, it can have the same functional effect depending on the attorney’s subsequent rehabilitation, or lack thereof.