In re Burke
This text of In re Burke (In re Burke) 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.
Opinion
Notice: This opinion 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. 24-BG-1013
IN RE LYNN BURKE, RESPONDENT.
A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 1006423)
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN: 21-BD-009; DDNs: 2014-D303, 2017-D266, 2018-D102, 2018-D325 & 2022-D134)
(Decided: February 27, 2025)
Before: BECKWITH and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and STEADMAN, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Lynn
Burke be suspended from the practice of law for two years with reinstatement
conditioned upon a showing of fitness and payment of restitution based on its finding
that she violated D.C. R. Pro. Conduct 1.5(a) and (b), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d), 5.5(a),
7.1(a), 7.5(a), and 8.4(c); North Carolina R. Pro. Conduct 1.4(a) and (b), and 7.1; and
Maryland R. Pro. Conduct 19-301.3(a). Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the
Board’s Report and Recommendation. 2
Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report,
the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon
the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In re Viehe, 762
A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the Board’s report
and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes even more
deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and we agree that the Board’s
recommended sanction is reasonable and appropriate for the violations presented here,1
we accept the recommendation that respondent be suspended for two years with
reinstatement conditioned on demonstrating fitness to practice law and payment of
restitution. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent Lynn Burke is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in the District of Columbia for two years, with reinstatement conditioned on
demonstrating fitness to practice law and payment of restitution. Respondent’s
attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on
eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c).
So ordered.
1 See In re Edwards, 278 A.3d 1171, 1174-75 (D.C. 2022) (imposing sanction of two-year suspension and fitness requirement for violation of Rules 1.15(a) and 8.4(c), “severe and pervasive” lack of recordkeeping, and “prior censure for strikingly similar misconduct”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In re Burke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burke-dc-2025.