In re Courtois

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Courtois

720 A.2d 560, 1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 216, 1998 WL 800105

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1998

DocketNo. 96-BG-1642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 720 A.2d 560 (In re Courtois) 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 Courtois, 720 A.2d 560, 1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 216, 1998 WL 800105 (D.C. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the court disbar respondent on consent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12(b). That recommendation comes in the wake of respondent’s consent to disbarment in Maryland following his conviction in the United States District Court on two counts of tax evasion.

We accept the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Gary A Courtois be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to February 14,1997, the date on which he filed an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). Further, the reciprocal discipline matter pending before this court and the Board is dismissed, without prejudice to Bar Counsel’s reinstituting it should respondent seek reinstatement while his Maryland disbarment is in effect. See In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142, n. 2 (D.C.1997).

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

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the court disbar respondent on consent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 12(b). That recommendation comes in the wake of respondent’s consent to disbarment in Maryland following his conviction in the United States District Court on two counts of tax evasion.

We accept the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent Gary A Courtois be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to February 14,1997, the date on which he filed an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). Further, the reciprocal discipline matter pending before this court and the Board is dismissed, without prejudice to Bar Counsel’s reinstituting it should respondent seek reinstatement while his Maryland disbarment is in effect. See In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142, n. 2 (D.C.1997).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 A.2d 560, 1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 216, 1998 WL 800105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-courtois-dc-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack