In re Dean, 97-BG-196.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-BG-196.,97-BG-196. |
| Citation | 704 A.2d 302 |
| Parties | In re William J. DEAN, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before WAGNER, Chief Judge, and STEADMAN and RUIZ, Associate Judges.
While facing serious disciplinary charges in Virginia, respondent filed a petition with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, requesting leave to surrender his license to practice law. On December 10, 1996, that board entered an order revoking respondent's license.
Such action constitutes "discipline" upon which reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia may be based. In re Sheridan, 680 A.2d 439, 440 (D.C.1996); see also In re Richardson, 692 A.2d 427, 431-32 (D.C.1997). Accordingly, on March 3, 1997, we entered an interim suspension order. Before us now is the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11.1 Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has taken exception to the recommendation of the Board, which we adopt. On March 5, 1997, respondent filed an affidavit which, among other things, met the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) and In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), and hence is eligible for nunc pro tunc treatment. See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331-33 (D.C.1994).
ORDERED that respondent William J. Dean's license to practice law in the District of Columbia is suspended nunc pro tunc to March 5, 1997, with leave to apply for reinstatement pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d) when he is reinstated to practice in Virginia or after a period of five years from March 5, 1997, whichever first occurs.
1 Respondent admitted to the Board that he had violated the Virginia disciplinary rules that formed the bases for the charges pending against him at the time of his resignation; viz., violations of Virginia DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct), DR 1-102(A)(4) (), DR 6-101(B) (neglect), DR 6-101(C) (), DR 7-101(A)(1) (), DR 7-101(A)(2) (), DR 7-101(A)(3) (), DR 9-103(A) (), and DR 9-103(B) ().
Bar Counsel asserted before the Board that the foregoing Virginia disciplinary rules were similar, if not identical, to corresponding District of Columbia disciplinary rules, with the exception of the commingling and record-keeping violations, which related solely to fee and cost advances. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Laibstain
...one occasion this court has—without comment—treated a suspension as equivalent to a revocation in another jurisdiction. See In re Dean, 704 A.2d 302, 303 (D.C. 1998). We also have imposed suspension or disbarment as the "virtually identical" equivalent of another jurisdiction's disciplinary......
-
In re Laibstain, Nos. 02-BG-86 and 02-BG-70 (D.C. 2/12/2004), s. 02-BG-86 and 02-BG-70.
...occasion this court has — without comment — treated a suspension as equivalent to a revocation in another jurisdiction. See In re Dean, 704 A.2d 302, 303 (D.C. 1998). We also have imposed suspension disbarment as the "virtually identical" equivalent of another jurisdiction's disciplinary re......
-
In re Webb, No. 99-BG-645.
...be revocation, with leave to reapply either after reinstatement in Virginia or after the expiration of five years. See In re Dean 704 A.2d 302, 303 (D.C.1998) (per curiam); In re Sheridan, supra, 680 A.2d at 440; In re Otchere, supra, 677 A.2d at 1041; In re Diday, 631 A.2d 901 (D.C.1993) (......