In re Mustafa
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
631 A.2d 45 (1993)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
John Mustafa II (defendant) attended law school at the University of California at Los Angeles (the law school). Mustafa was editor of the law review and one of two co-chief justices of the law school’s moot-court program. Mustafa shared control of the moot-court program’s checking account. Over a period of five months, Mustafa converted to his own use approximately $3,500 of the program’s monies, reimbursed himself for expenditures that had been or would be reimbursed by the university’s accounting department, and falsified the purpose of checks he wrote. Mustafa made restitution and disclosed his misconduct to the law school and the law firm at which he was employed as a law clerk. Mustafa passed the bar examination and applied for admission to the Bar of the District of Columbia (the D.C. bar). The D.C. bar’s character-and-fitness committee (the committee) held a hearing and found that Mustafa had always intended to repay the money, had made full restitution before any action by the law school, and had been honest and forthright during the law school’s investigation and before the committee. Relying on multiple references as to Mustafa’s current good character, the committee recommended that Mustafa be admitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
