In re Loigman, 90-94.
Decision Date | 07 December 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 90-94.,90-94. |
Citation | 582 A.2d 1202 |
Parties | In re Larry S. LOIGMAN, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, FARRELL, Associate Judge, and PRYOR, Senior Judge.
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
This matter is before this court on the recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) that respondent receive reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule XI, § 11(c) of this court's Rules Governing the District of Columbia Bar. We adopt the Board's recommendation.
Respondent is a member of the bar of the state of New Jersey and of the District of Columbia. On November 13, 1989, this court received notice of a decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey that respondent had been publicly reprimanded based on three separate disciplinary matters arising from his conduct between 1977 and 1984.1 On February 6, 1990, this court ordered respondent to show cause before the Board why identical discipline should not be imposed, and requested the Board to elect thereafter whether to proceed de novo pursuant to Rule XI, § 8, or recommend whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed.
Rule XI, § 11(c) provides that in reciprocal discipline cases the identical discipline "shall be imposed" unless the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that:
The rule also states that "unless there is a finding by the Board under (1), (2), or (5) above that is accepted by the Court, a final determination by a disciplining court outside the District of Columbia or by another court in the District of Columbia that an attorney has been guilty of professional misconduct shall conclusively establish the misconduct for the purpose of a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding in this Court." Rule XI requires this court to give deference to the Board's recommendation, In re Hutchinson, 518 A.2d 995, 1000 (D.C.1986); and in reciprocal discipline cases, the court also gives due deference to the disciplining jurisdiction. See In re Hudock, 544 A.2d 707 (D.C.1988); In re Velasquez, 507 A.2d 145, 147 (D.C.1986).
In a letter to the Board dated March 12, 1990, respondent opposed the imposition of reciprocal discipline, stating among other things that his violations were remote in time, that the New Jersey authorities' failure to act promptly constituted a denial of due process, and that he should not be punished for errors made in the early years of his law practice.
On August 8, 1990, the Board recommended that respondent be reciprocally disciplined in the form of a public reprimand. In its report and recommendation to the court, the Board determined that none of the five criteria set forth in § 11(c)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Battistelli
...similar reciprocal discipline rules have concluded that this provision precludes relitigation of the charges. See, e.g., In re Loigman, 582 A.2d 1202 (D.C.App.1990); Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Sparrow, 314 Md. 421, 550 A.2d 1150 (1988); State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Dineen, 23......
-
IN RE RICHARDSON, 90-1539
...discipline case, the principles of collateral estoppel obligate us to accept the holding of that court. See, e.g., In re Loigman, 582 A.2d 1202, 1203 (D.C. 1990); In re Velasquez, 507 A.2d 145, 147 (D.C. 1986); Ali Baba Company v. Wilco, Incorporated, 482 A.2d 418, 421-22 (D.C. In addition,......
-
Matter of Muckelroy
...different discipline in the District of Columbia, or that reciprocal discipline would result in a grave injustice. See In re Loigman, 582 A.2d 1202 (D.C.1990). The Board found that respondent has made neither showing. No exceptions were filed in this court, and our scope of review is limite......
-
In re Dreier, 93-BG-366.
...sanction, but advocates reciprocal discipline, recognizing the deference that is owed to the original jurisdiction. In re Loigman, 582 A.2d 1202 (D.C. 1990) (per curiam); In re Velasquez, 507 A.2d 145 (D.C.1986) (per Although we have the authority under Rule XI to impose a reprimand ourselv......