In re Barry C. Stiller.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 95-BG-909 IN RE: BARRY C. STILLER, Respondent. BDN: 430-88 BEFORE: *Wagner, Chief Judge; *Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, Farrell, Ruiz, Reid, Glickman, Washington, Associate Judges; and *Pryor, Senior Judge. ORDER (FILED - November 12, 2010) On consideration of petitioners petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, and respondent s response thereto, it is ORDERED by the merits division* that the petition for rehearing is denied. See In re Slattery, 767 A2d 203, 206 (D.C. 2001). (holding Stiller in accord with principle that [t]here is no requirement in either [subsection (b) or (c) of Rule 8.4] that an attorney actually have been convicted of a crime for the rule to apply). And it appearing that the majority of the judges of this court have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, it is FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. PER CURIAM *Senior Judge Wagner was Chief Judge at the time the petition was filed. *Senior Judges Terry, Steadman, Schwelb, and Farrell, were Associate Judges at the time the petition was filed. *Chief Judge Washington was an Associate Judge at the time the petition was filed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
