Confirm favorite deletion?
Professional Responsibility Keyed to Martyn
In re Rachal
Citation:251 A.3d 1038 (D.C. Ct. App. 2021)
Rachal (Respondent), an attorney in D.C., simultaneously represented both Patrick Ridley, who was the sole beneficiary of the Virginia P. Ridley Trust, and the Fishers, who were creditors of that trust. Rachal was retained by Mr. Ridley to remove the present trustee, secure the appointment of a new trustee, and compel the trustee to pay debts owed to the Fishers and distribute trust assets to the beneficiaries. The Disciplinary Counsel filed charges against Rachal for violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct based on a conflict of interest.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.