Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JAMES C. UNDERHILL, JR., Respondent. Bar Registration
ORDER
BEFORE: Glickman, Associate Judge, and Terry and Steadman, Senior Judges.
On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Colorado for a period of one-year and one-day, stayed in favor of a nine-month suspension and a two-year probationary period with conditions, this court's February 20, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause but did file an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14
g
on March 12, 2013, it is
ORDERED that James C. Underhill, Jr., is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one-year and one-day, stayed in favor of a nine-month suspension and a two-year probationary period subject to the conditions imposed by the state of Colorado, nunc pro tunc to March 12, 2013. See In re Mance, 980 A.2d 1196
D.C.2009
established prospective rule that a flat fee remains the client's property until earned and failure to hold those funds in trust constitutes negligent misappropriation of funds
; see also, In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483
D.C.2010
, and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198
D.C.2007
rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate
.
PER CURIAM
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13–BG–38
Decided: June 13, 2013
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)