In re Hawbaker

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Hawbaker

67 A.3d 554, 2013 WL 2435369

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 2013

DocketNo. 12-BG-1971; Registration No. 416661, BDN: 205-12

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.3d 554 (In re Hawbaker) 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 Hawbaker, 67 A.3d 554, 2013 WL 2435369 (D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of California, this court’s December 27, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that this court granted respondent’s two motions for extensions of time to respond to the court’s order but respondent still 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), it is

ORDERED that Thomas A. Hawbaker is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (“[I]n virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment is the only sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence.”) see also, 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 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 Supreme Court of California disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of California, this court’s December 27, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that this court granted respondent’s two motions for extensions of time to respond to the court’s order but respondent still 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), it is

ORDERED that Thomas A. Hawbaker is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (“[I]n virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarment is the only sanction unless it appears that the misconduct resulted from nothing more than simple negligence.”) see also, 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 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)

67 A.3d 554, 2013 WL 2435369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hawbaker-dc-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack