In re Cynn

655 A.2d 319, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 42, 1995 WL 91550
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 1995·No. No. 93-BG-720·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Before us is a reciprocal discipline case. By order dated April 23, 1993, the Virginia [320] State Bar Disciplinary Board imposed a public reprimand, with terms and conditions,1 on respondent for improper treatment of interest on his client trust account. Pursuant to D.C.Bar R. XI, § 11, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends to this court that we impose identical discipline on respondent in this jurisdiction. No opposition or exceptions to the recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility have been filed by either respondent or Bar Counsel; indeed, respondent has taken no part whatever in these proceedings at any level. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.1995) (by nonparticipation, attorney admits liability and concedes that imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted; usual deferential standard to Board’s recommendation of sanction heightened). We accept the Board’s recommendation to impose identical reciprocal discipline. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondent, Jin-Ho Cynn, be, and he hereby is, publicly reprimanded, subject to compliance with all the terms and conditions imposed by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board,' see note 1, supra,2 and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s failure to comply with any one or more of said terms and conditions will result in the alternative sanction of suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in the District of Columbia for a period of one (1) year.

So ordered.

Footnotes

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

In re Cynn, 655 A.2d 319, 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 42, 1995 WL 91550 (D.C. 1995).

655 A.2d 319 (In re Cynn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Steinberg
720 A.2d 900 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1998)
Matter of McGann
666 A.2d 489 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1995)