In re: Floyd W. Anderson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Note to readers: To navigate within this document use the set of icons listed above on the Acrobat toolbar. These opinions are made available as a joint effort by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Bar. 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. 99-BG-735 IN RE FLOYD W. ANDERSON, PETITIONER. On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Submitted October 28, 1999 Decided December 9, 1999) Before STEADMAN and SCHWELB, Associate Judges, and FERREN, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: In 1982, Floyd W. Anderson pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of false pretenses. This court disbarred Anderson after finding that these were crimes involving moral turpitude. In re Anderson, 474 A.2d 145, 146 (D.C. 1994). Anderson now seeks reinstatement to the Bar of the District of Columbia. The Hearing Committee applied the relevant factors, In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215, 1217 (D.C. 1985), and recommended reinstatement. The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted that recommendation. Although the ultimate decision on whether an attorney is reinstated is ours alone, the Board s findings or recommendations in this regard are entitled to great weight. In re Borders, 665 A.2d 1381, 1381-82 (D.C. 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Although Bar Counsel argued against the petition before the Hearing Committee, he did not file any exceptions to the Board s recommendation with us and thus the recommendation for reinstatement comes to us as unopposed, thus entitling the Board s decision to even greater deference. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995); see also, D.C. Bar R. XI § 16 (e) (where petition for reinstatement is unopposed, the court may grant it without further briefing or argument). -2- Giving great weight to the Board s findings and recommendation, we conclude that Anderson has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law required for re-admission; and (2) that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar, or to the administration of justice, or subversive to the public interest. D.C. Bar R. XI § 16 (d). Accordingly, and substantially for the reasons stated by the Board, Floyd W. Anderson is reinstated to the practice of law in this jurisdiction effective immediately. So ordered.
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.
