In re Bogachoff

869 A.2d 338, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 36, 2005 WL 425390
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 24, 2005
DocketNo. 04-BG-476
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 A.2d 338 (In re Bogachoff) 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 Bogachoff, 869 A.2d 338, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 36, 2005 WL 425390 (D.C. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On March 5, 2004, the respondent, Ivan Bogachoff, pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. After being informed of his conviction we temporarily suspended Respon[339]*339dent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction per D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 10(c). We also directed the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) to institute a formal proceeding to determine the final discipline to be imposed and to decide if Respondent’s crime involved “moral turpitude” within the meaning of D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (2001).

The Board determined that Respondent’s crime is one of moral turpitude and in its Report and Recommendation of July 28, 2004, it recommended that he be disbarred. Because neither Bar Counsel nor Respondent have filed exceptions to the Board’s report, our deference to it is heightened. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C. 1997). Moreover, as Respondent has admitted to committing felony bank fraud, a crime which we long ago held to involve moral turpitude, see In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036, 1037 (D.C.1991), his disbarment is mandatory. See D.C.Code § ll-2503(a). Accordingly, we accept the Board’s recommended sanction and it is

ORDERED that Ivan Bogachoff is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, and his name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before this court. Respondent’s disbarment shall run, for the purposes of reinstatement, from the date he files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331 (D.C.1994).

So ordered.

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

Related

In Re Lickstein
972 A.2d 314 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
869 A.2d 338, 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 36, 2005 WL 425390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bogachoff-dc-2005.