In re Berger

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Berger

902 A.2d 139, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 1835009

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 2006

DocketNo. 05-BG-1054

StatusPublished

This text of 902 A.2d 139 (In re Berger) 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 Berger, 902 A.2d 139, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 1835009 (D.C. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Burman A. Berger consented to his disbarment by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on September 20, 2005, for repeatedly neglecting his clients’ cases in violation of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4. Those Rules are virtually identical to their counterparts in the District of Columbia, and the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent in this jurisdic[140]*140tion pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c). Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has opposed the Board’s recommendation.¹

In accordance with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f), we follow the Board’s recommendation. See In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 968-69 (D.C.2003); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n. 3 (D.C.2002). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Burman A. Berger is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The disbarment is effective immediately,² though for purposes of reinstatement it shall be deemed to commence on the date respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

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

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Burman A. Berger consented to his disbarment by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on September 20, 2005, for repeatedly neglecting his clients’ cases in violation of Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4. Those Rules are virtually identical to their counterparts in the District of Columbia, and the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent in this jurisdic[140]*140tion pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c). Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has opposed the Board’s recommendation.¹

In accordance with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f), we follow the Board’s recommendation. See In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 968-69 (D.C.2003); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n. 3 (D.C.2002). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Burman A. Berger is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The disbarment is effective immediately,² though for purposes of reinstatement it shall be deemed to commence on the date respondent files an affidavit that fully complies with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

902 A.2d 139, 2006 D.C. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 1835009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-berger-dc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack