In re: Dale E. Dunan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re: Dale E. Dunan

108 A.3d 1250, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 23, 2015 WL 543003

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

Docket14-BG-1223

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.3d 1250 (In re: Dale E. Dunan) 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: Dale E. Dunan, 108 A.3d 1250, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 23, 2015 WL 543003 (D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order revoking respondent’s license to practice law in the state of Virginia, this court’s November 10, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment 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), and it further appearing that respondent has twice been suspended for a period of two years as reciprocal discipline but has failed to file his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) in either case, In re Dale E. Duncan, 67 A.3d 1056 (D.C.2013); In re Dale E. Duncan, 21 A.3d 1003 (D.C.2011), it is

ORDERED that Dale E. Duncan 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 the period that must pass before one is eligible to file for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

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 revoking respondent’s license to practice law in the state of Virginia, this court’s November 10, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment 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), and it further appearing that respondent has twice been suspended for a period of two years as reciprocal discipline but has failed to file his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) in either case, In re Dale E. Duncan, 67 A.3d 1056 (D.C.2013); In re Dale E. Duncan, 21 A.3d 1003 (D.C.2011), it is

ORDERED that Dale E. Duncan 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 the period that must pass before one is eligible to file for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.3d 1250, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 23, 2015 WL 543003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dale-e-dunan-dc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack