In Re Coppola

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Coppola

28 A.3d 584, 2011 WL 4084628

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 15, 2011

Docket11-BG-635

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.3d 584 (In Re Coppola) 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 Coppola, 28 A.3d 584, 2011 WL 4084628 (D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Mainland v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370, 19 A.3d 431 (2011), this court’s June 14, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that John M. Coppola is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007), and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Mainland v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370, 19 A.3d 431 (2011), this court’s June 14, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that John M. Coppola is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007), and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.3d 584, 2011 WL 4084628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coppola-dc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack