Opinion ID: 1906029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The charge under Count II.

Text: Respondent states in his brief that he has no quarrel with the right of the district judges to inquire into the particulars of the January 5 occurrence, and further states his version to the judges of the incident was admittedly biased and prejudiced and in all probability somewhat inaccurate. We agree. In his statement to the judges, respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(4), Canon 1, which states: DR 1-102. Misconduct. (A) A lawyer shall not: . . . (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The version of the January 5 occurrence that respondent related to the judges contained many misrepresentations or misstatements of material facts and sustains the charge under Count II.