In re Hest
| Decision Date | 29 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-BG-663.,01-BG-663. |
| Citation | 825 A.2d 301 |
| Parties | In re Bruce H. HEST, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before RUIZ, REID and WASHINGTON, Associate Judges.
This matter came before the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") as a result of discipline imposed upon Bruce H. Hest ("Respondent") by the Supreme Court of Florida,1 for ethical misconduct warranting such sanction from the Florida Bar.2
Bar Counsel, upon review of the Respondent's Florida disciplinary record, recommended that reciprocal discipline be imposed and that the Respondent be disbarred in the District of Columbia. On October 31, 2002, the Board determined that reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment should be imposed and recommended that the Respondent be disbarred.
Respondent has filed no brief with this court opposing the Board's recommendation. We therefore impose the discipline recommended by the Board in its Report and Recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(1).3
ORDERED that Bruce H. Hest shall be disbarred, effective immediately. For purposes of eligibility to apply for reinstatement, disbarment will be deemed to commence upon the filing of the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, which respondent has not yet filed.4
So ordered.
1. On October 4, 2000, the Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Florida on an emergency basis on Petition for Emergency Suspension by The Florida Bar. On March 1, 2001, the Respondent submitted an uncontested Petition for Disciplinary Resignation, which was granted on May 10, 2001.
The Florida Supreme Court noted that its grant of the petition for disciplinary resignation with leave to seek readmission after five years "is tantamount to disbarment," and further noted, quoting rules and regulations governing admissions to the bar, that "[a]s with disbarment, in seeking readmission to The Florida Bar, Respondent `may be admitted again only upon full compliance"' with said rules and regulations.
2. The Respondent's petition to the Florida Court cited various outstanding disciplinary matters, including a disciplinary action alleging misappropriation of client funds, a pending disciplinary matter involving allegations of having charged a clearly excessive fee, and two other matters in which he was alleged to have engaged in numerous trust accounting violations, including misappropriation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Laibstain
...equivalent of another jurisdiction's disciplinary resignation. In re Brown, 797 A.2d 1232 (D.C.2002) (suspension); see also In re Hest, 825 A.2d 301, 302 (D.C. 2003) We will not impose otherwise permissible identical reciprocal discipline if "[t]he misconduct established warrants substantia......
-
In re Laibstain, Nos. 02-BG-86 and 02-BG-70 (D.C. 2/12/2004), s. 02-BG-86 and 02-BG-70.
...of another jurisdiction's disciplinary resignation. In re Brown, 797 A.2d 1232 (D.C. 2002) (suspension); see also In re Hest, 825 A.2d 301, 302 (D.C. 2003) We will not impose otherwise permissible identical reciprocal discipline if "[t]he misconduct established warrants substantially differ......
- Washington Post v. DEPT. OF EMP. SERVICES