In re David Furrer

184 A.3d 845
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided May 24, 2018·No. 18-BG-215·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent; this court's March 9, 2018, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension with a fitness requirement, with the right to file for reinstatement after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first, should not be imposed; the motion of Disciplinary Counsel for leave to file his lodged late response; and it appearing that respondent failed to file either a response to the court's show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that the motion of Disciplinary Counsel is granted and the lodged response is filed. It is

ORDERED that David E. Furrer is hereby indefinitely suspended with a fitness requirement. He may file for reinstatement after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194 , 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable 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 respondent's suspension 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

In re David Furrer, 184 A.3d 845 (D.C. 2018).

184 A.3d 845 (In re David Furrer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Sibley
990 A.2d 483 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)