In Re Coppola

28 A.3d 584, 2011 WL 4084628
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided September 15, 2011·No. 11-BG-635·Published

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

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

28 A.3d 584 (In Re Coppola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Coppola
19 A.3d 431 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
In re Willingham
900 A.2d 165 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)