In re Banks

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Banks

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 2025

Docket25-BG-0729

StatusPublished

This text of In re Banks (In re Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Banks, (D.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Notice: This order is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0726

IN RE CHESTER L. BANKS, Respondent. A Temporarily Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 1008278 DDN: 2025-D080

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.

ORDER (FILED – December 11, 2025)

On consideration of the certified order from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, suspending respondent from the practice of law for ninety days; this court’s August 1, 2025, order suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent’s letter stating that he does not oppose reciprocal discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel recommending that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a compliant D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Chester L. Banks is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Banks’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Notice: This order is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0726

IN RE CHESTER L. BANKS, Respondent. A Temporarily Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 1008278 DDN: 2025-D080

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.

ORDER (FILED – December 11, 2025)

On consideration of the certified order from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, suspending respondent from the practice of law for ninety days; this court’s August 1, 2025, order suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent’s letter stating that he does not oppose reciprocal discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel recommending that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a compliant D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Chester L. Banks is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Banks’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Banks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-banks-dc-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack