Opinion ID: 2310847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: District of Columbia authorities.

Text: There is no District of Columbia case law squarely in point on the issue before us. The authority that does exist, however, is consistent with Professor Williston's approach and favors Bar Counsel's position. In Bowles v. Laws, 59 App. D.C. 399, 45 F.2d 669 (1930), cert. denied, 283 U.S. 841, 51 S.Ct. 488, 75 L.Ed. 1452 (1931), the court stated by way of dictum that a [presidential] pardon wipes out the offense against the public, but does not annul the act or affect the right of the court to punish [12] for professional misconduct.  Id. at 401, 45 F.2d at 671 (emphasis added; citation omitted). The Board on Professional Responsibility reached the same conclusion in Felt, supra, and the Hearing Committee did likewise in the present case. The court in Bowles, the Board in Felt, and the Hearing Committee in Abrams were all unanimous.