In re Duncan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Duncan

67 A.3d 1056, 2013 WL 2631048

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2013

DocketNo. 13-BG-276; Bar Registration No. 370591, BDN: 395-12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.3d 1056 (In re Duncan) 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 Duncan, 67 A.3d 1056, 2013 WL 2631048 (D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Virginia for a period of two years and this suspension is to be served consecutively to his earlier suspension, this court’s April 2, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of a two year consecutive suspension 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 was suspended for a period of two years as reciprocal discipline but has failed to file his D.C.Bar R. XI, § 14(g), in that case, In re Dale E. Duncan, 21 A.3d 1003 (D.C.2011), it is

ORDERED that Dale E. Duncan is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years and this suspension shall be served after he completes his earlier suspension. 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 the period of respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files 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 suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Virginia for a period of two years and this suspension is to be served consecutively to his earlier suspension, this court’s April 2, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of a two year consecutive suspension 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 was suspended for a period of two years as reciprocal discipline but has failed to file his D.C.Bar R. XI, § 14(g), in that case, In re Dale E. Duncan, 21 A.3d 1003 (D.C.2011), it is

ORDERED that Dale E. Duncan is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years and this suspension shall be served after he completes his earlier suspension. 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 the period of respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files D.C.Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.3d 1056, 2013 WL 2631048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-duncan-dc-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack