In re DeLaurentis

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re DeLaurentis

45 A.3d 165, 2012 WL 2044350

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2012

DocketNo. 12-BG-378

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.3d 165 (In re DeLaurentis) 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 DeLaurentis, 45 A.3d 165, 2012 WL 2044350 (D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. DeLaurentis, 423 Md. 686, 33 A.3d 479 (2011), this court’s April 10, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of respondent consenting to reciprocal discipline but asking that his discipline run concurrent with his discipline in Maryland, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit that was filed on April 5, 2012, and it appearing that respondent did not notify Bar Counsel of his disbarment as required by In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), for the imposition of concurrent disciplinary sanctions, it is

ORDERED that Anthony J. DeLauren-tis is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to April 5, 2012.

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 Maryland Court of Appeals disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. DeLaurentis, 423 Md. 686, 33 A.3d 479 (2011), this court’s April 10, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of respondent consenting to reciprocal discipline but asking that his discipline run concurrent with his discipline in Maryland, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit that was filed on April 5, 2012, and it appearing that respondent did not notify Bar Counsel of his disbarment as required by In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), for the imposition of concurrent disciplinary sanctions, it is

ORDERED that Anthony J. DeLauren-tis is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to April 5, 2012.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.3d 165, 2012 WL 2044350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-delaurentis-dc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack