In Re Bender

7 A.3d 1028, 2010 WL 4537747
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 12, 2010
Docket10-BG-943
StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.3d 1028 (In Re Bender) 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 Bender, 7 A.3d 1028, 2010 WL 4537747 (D.C. 2010).

Opinion

7 A.3d 1028 (2010)

In re S. Michael BENDER, Respondent.

No. 10-BG-943.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Filed November 12, 2010.

Before REID, Associate Judge, TERRY and KING, Senior Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, see In re Bender, 201 N.J. 416, 991 A.2d 215 (2010), this court's August 17, 2010, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court's order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that S. Michael Bender, Esquire, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of three years with a fitness requirement. See In re Abraham, 974 A.2d 859 (D.C.2009) (imposition of a fitness requirement to a suspension imposed by the District of Columbia is the functional equivalent discipline for suspensions imposed by New Jersey); and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent'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).

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

Related

In Re Abraham
974 A.2d 859 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)
In Re Bender
991 A.2d 215 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
In Re Allen
7 A.3d 1028 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In re Willingham
900 A.2d 165 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 A.3d 1028, 2010 WL 4537747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bender-dc-2010.