In Re Fisher

998 A.2d 313, 2010 WL 2398919
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 17, 2010
Docket09-BG-1114
StatusPublished

This text of 998 A.2d 313 (In Re Fisher) 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 Fisher, 998 A.2d 313, 2010 WL 2398919 (D.C. 2010).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the judgment issued by the Colorado Supreme Court suspending respondent for six months, stayed upon completion of a two year probationary period, see In re Fisher, 202 P.3d 1186 (2009), this court’s September 29, 2009, directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the consolidated response and brief in support of request for no reciprocal discipline, the reply of Bar Counsel, respondent’s surreply, and respondent’s supplemental exhibits including transcript; and it appearing that respondent has not established that any of the exceptions to reciprocal discipline contained in D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c) apply, it is

ORDERED that respondent, Robert S. Fisher, be and hereby is suspended for six months and imposition of the suspension is stayed. See In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C.2003) (“reciprocal disciplinary] proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”); In re Meisler, 776 A.2d 1207, 1208 (D.C.2001) (“In reciprocal discipline cases, the presumption is that the discipline in the District of Columbia will be the same as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction.”); In re Sumner, 762 A.2d 528 (D.C.2000) (In uncontested reciprocal discipline cases, absent a finding of grave injustice, this court will impose identical reciprocal discipline); In re Evans, 902 A.2d 56 (D.C.2006) (This court imposed a six-month suspension, with 90 days stayed in favor of one year probation with conditions, where respondent provided incompetent representation stemming from conflict of interest in relation to a real estate loan).

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

Related

In Re Evans
902 A.2d 56 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2006)
In Re Meisler
776 A.2d 1207 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2001)
In Re Sumner
762 A.2d 528 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2000)
In Re Zdravkovich
831 A.2d 964 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2003)
In Re Fisher
202 P.3d 1186 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
998 A.2d 313, 2010 WL 2398919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fisher-dc-2010.