In Re Farris

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Farris

963 A.2d 1182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 136489

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 2009

Docket08-BG-1320

StatusPublished

This text of 963 A.2d 1182 (In Re Farris) 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 Farris, 963 A.2d 1182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 136489 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent by consent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Atty. Grievance Comm’n v. Farris, 405 Md. 486, 954 A.2d 456 (2008), this court’s November 14, 2008, order suspending respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical 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 the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Peter D. Farris is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with the right to apply for reinstatement after being reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever comes first. See In re Hardwick, 859 A.2d 1063 (D.C.2004); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 970 (D.C.2003); In re Blades, 766 A.2d 560 (D.C.2001). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s sus *1183 pension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that 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 Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent by consent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Atty. Grievance Comm’n v. Farris, 405 Md. 486, 954 A.2d 456 (2008), this court’s November 14, 2008, order suspending respondent from the practice of law in this jurisdiction pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical 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 the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Peter D. Farris is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with the right to apply for reinstatement after being reinstated in Maryland or after five years, whichever comes first. See In re Hardwick, 859 A.2d 1063 (D.C.2004); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 970 (D.C.2003); In re Blades, 766 A.2d 560 (D.C.2001). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s sus *1183 pension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 A.2d 1182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 5, 2009 WL 136489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-farris-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack