In Re Duker

723 A.2d 410, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 16, 1999 WL 33448
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 28, 1999
Docket97-BG-1457
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 723 A.2d 410 (In Re Duker) 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 Duker, 723 A.2d 410, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 16, 1999 WL 33448 (D.C. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On August 21,1997, respondent William F. Duker pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342 and related charges. 1 Bar Counsel reported Respondent’s guilty plea to this court. On September 22, 1997, we entered an order suspending respondent from the practice of law pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 10(c) while the Board on Professional Responsibility conducted a formal proceeding to determine its recommended discipline.

The Board recommends disbarment. D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) requires such a sanction for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The criminal offense of mail fraud involves moral turpitude per se. In re Ferber, 703 A.2d 142, 143 (D.C.1997) (per curiam). 2 Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has filed any exception to this recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that William F. Duker, Esquire, is disbarred, effective forthwith, from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Respondent’s attention is again called to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14, including the affidavit requirement of subsection (g), and to the consequences of not timely complying with the requirements of section 14 set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

1

. The related charges were making false, fictitious and fraudulent claims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 & 2; making false, fictitious and fraudulent statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 & 2; and obstructing and impeding a federal auditor in the performance of his official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1516 & 2.

2

. Since the mail fraud conviction mandates disbarment, it was unnecessary for the Board (or us) to address the other convictions. See In re Eberhart, 678 A.2d 1023, 1024 n. 2 (D.C.1996) (per curiam).

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

Related

In re Juliano
912 A.2d 553 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COM'N OF MARYLAND v. Bereano
744 A.2d 35 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
723 A.2d 410, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 16, 1999 WL 33448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-duker-dc-1999.