IN RE: EARL A. SMITH

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

IN RE: EARL A. SMITH

125 A.3d 1118, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 521, 2015 WL 6739084

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket15-BG-925

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.3d 1118 (IN RE: EARL A. SMITH) 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: EARL A. SMITH, 125 A.3d 1118, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 521, 2015 WL 6739084 (D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in *1119 that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 443 Md. 351, 116 A.3d 977 (2015), this court’s August 25, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that. Earl A. Smith is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. 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 period of 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 Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in *1119 that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 443 Md. 351, 116 A.3d 977 (2015), this court’s August 25, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that. Earl A. Smith is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. 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 period of 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)

125 A.3d 1118, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 521, 2015 WL 6739084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-earl-a-smith-dc-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack