In re Daniel

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Daniel

964 A.2d 595, 2009 WL 256077

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2009

DocketNo. 07-BG-1271

StatusPublished

This text of 964 A.2d 595 (In re Daniel) 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 Daniel, 964 A.2d 595, 2009 WL 256077 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Colorado disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see People v. Daniel, No. 07PDJ026 (Colo. Mar. 17, 2008), this court’s January 7, 2008, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which no exceptions have been taken, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either 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 Royal Daniel, III, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191, 194 (D.C.1990)(en banc); accord, In re Devaney, 870 A.2d 53 (D.C.2005). 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 Colorado disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see People v. Daniel, No. 07PDJ026 (Colo. Mar. 17, 2008), this court’s January 7, 2008, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which no exceptions have been taken, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either 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 Royal Daniel, III, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191, 194 (D.C.1990)(en banc); accord, In re Devaney, 870 A.2d 53 (D.C.2005). 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)

964 A.2d 595, 2009 WL 256077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack