In Re Brannon

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Brannon

987 A.2d 1144, 2010 WL 305226

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 2010

Docket09-BG-1243

StatusPublished

This text of 987 A.2d 1144 (In Re Brannon) 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 Brannon, 987 A.2d 1144, 2010 WL 305226 (D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the order issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court suspending respondent for one year, see In the Matter of Derwin Brannon, 383 S.C. 374, 680 S.E.2d 776 (2009), the requirement that South Carolina attorneys suspended for nine months or more must file a petition for reinstatement, this court’s November 2, 2009, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending final disposition by this court, and directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and there appearing to be no response from respondent to the show cause order, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it further appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that respondent, Derwin T. Brannon, be and hereby is suspended for a period of one year with reinstatement conditioned upon a demonstration of fitness. See In re Sumner, 762 A.2d 528 (D.C.2000) (In uncontested reciprocal discipline cases, absent a finding of grave injustice, this court will impose identical reciprocal discipline.); In re Meisler, 776 A.2d 1207, 1208 (D.C.2001) (“[i]n reciprocal discipline cases, the presumption is that the disci *1145 pline in the District of Columbia will be the same as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction.”); In re Ayele, 918 A.2d 384 (D.C.2007) (Reciprocal discipline of one year and one day suspension involving failures to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, to communicate with a client, and to withdraw from representation of a client); In re D’Onofrio, 764 A.2d 797 (D.C.2001) (a petition for reinstatement is the functional equivalent to a fitness requirement in the District). Additionally, since respondent has failed to file the required affidavit, his suspension is deemed to commence for purposes of reinstatement upon the filing of an affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the order issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court suspending respondent for one year, see In the Matter of Derwin Brannon, 383 S.C. 374, 680 S.E.2d 776 (2009), the requirement that South Carolina attorneys suspended for nine months or more must file a petition for reinstatement, this court’s November 2, 2009, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending final disposition by this court, and directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and there appearing to be no response from respondent to the show cause order, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it further appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that respondent, Derwin T. Brannon, be and hereby is suspended for a period of one year with reinstatement conditioned upon a demonstration of fitness. See In re Sumner, 762 A.2d 528 (D.C.2000) (In uncontested reciprocal discipline cases, absent a finding of grave injustice, this court will impose identical reciprocal discipline.); In re Meisler, 776 A.2d 1207, 1208 (D.C.2001) (“[i]n reciprocal discipline cases, the presumption is that the disci *1145 pline in the District of Columbia will be the same as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction.”); In re Ayele, 918 A.2d 384 (D.C.2007) (Reciprocal discipline of one year and one day suspension involving failures to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, to communicate with a client, and to withdraw from representation of a client); In re D’Onofrio, 764 A.2d 797 (D.C.2001) (a petition for reinstatement is the functional equivalent to a fitness requirement in the District). Additionally, since respondent has failed to file the required affidavit, his suspension is deemed to commence for purposes of reinstatement upon the filing of an affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 A.2d 1144, 2010 WL 305226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brannon-dc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack