In re Franks

• Citation: 233 A.3d 29 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 30 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-BG-1164,19-BG-1164
• Parties: IN RE Maurice R. FRANKS, A Retired Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Registration No. 51110
• Court: Court of Appeals of Columbia District

233 A.3d 29 (Mem)

IN RE Maurice R. FRANKS, A Retired Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Registration No. 51110

No. 19-BG-1164

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Filed – July 30, 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Colorado disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that state; the December 11, 2019, order suspending respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed and respondent's response thereto wherein he states reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent's opposed motions to be placed on inactive disability status, to stay his disciplinary matter to permit him to settle the matter, and for leave to file the lodged exhibits; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a complete D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit after being informed that his affidavit was deficient, it is

ORDERED that respondent's motions to be placed on inactive disability status are denied because respondent does not meet the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 11(c). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's motion to the stay this matter pending negotiations with Disciplinary Counsel is denied as moot. Disciplinary Counsel has filed a response stating reciprocal discipline should be imposed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's motions to file his numerous attachments are denied. Respondent is not permitted to reargue the factual findings of the originating state in a reciprocal case. Further, the actions taken as part of the disciplinary proceedings in the state of Louisiana are not before this court and subsequent actions taken by other courts are not relevant in this reciprocal discipline case. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Maurice R. Franks is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. To the extent respondent argues that he was not provided due process in Colorado, the record reflects that he participated in the early stages of that disciplinary procedure and admitted to multiple counts of misappropriation of entrusted funds. Therefore, respondent knew of the disciplinary action and later refused to participate. To the extent respondent argues that the imposition of reciprocal discipline would cause grave injustice, respondent failed to report his discipline to this court for thirty years after...