Search

Search Disciplinary Decisions by

Attorney Name

Search Disciplinary Decisions by

Date Range

Search Disciplinary Decisions by

Keyword

Search Disciplinary Decisions by

Fastcase

Alternate Text

Ernest Francis

Docket No. 13-BD-089

Decisions

DCCA Opinion (April 28, 2016)

Summary: The D.C. Court of Appeals suspended Francis for 30 days and suspended that sanction in favor of a six-month probationary period during which Francis must complete three hours of Continuing Legal Education on legal ethics. While hired to serve as local counsel for an attorney representing a client in a civil matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Francis violated Rules 1.3(b)(1) (intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client); 1.3(b)(2) (intentional prejudice or damage to a client); 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed); and 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters to permit client to make informed decisions). Francis intentionally did not seek an extension of time to respond to a motion to dismiss his client’s case, after having been asked to do so by his lead counsel, which resulted in the dismissal of the client’s case.

Board Report and Orders (March 17, 2015)

Summary: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals suspend Francis for 30 days and that the suspension be stayed in favor of a six-month period of unsupervised probation, during which time the respondent must complete three hours of continuing legal education covering legal ethics. While hired to serve as local counsel for an attorney representing a client in a civil matter in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Francis violated Rule 1.3(b)(1) (intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client); Rule 1.3(b)(2) (intentional prejudice or damage to a client); Rule 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed); and Rule 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters to permit client to make informed decisions). Francis intentionally did not seek an extension of time to respond to a motion to dismiss his client’s case after having been asked to do so by his lead counsel, which resulted in the dismissal of the client’s case.

Hearing Committee Report (September 24, 2014)

Summary: Not yet available.

To search for additional disciplinary cases involving this attorney, click here

Skyline