In re: Charles A. Price

123 A.3d 492
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided August 27, 2015·No. 15-BG-565·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Burkhardt, 442 Md. 684, 114 A.3d 221 (2015), this court’s June 17, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, and 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 as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that John K. Burkhardt is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (re-buttable 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 period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully *493 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

In re: Charles A. Price, 123 A.3d 492 (D.C. 2015).

123 A.3d 492 (In re: Charles A. Price) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Sibley
990 A.2d 483 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Burkhardt
114 A.3d 221 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2015)