In re Heath
This text of In re Heath (In re Heath) 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.
Opinion
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 24-BG-0855
In re JOHN C. HEATH,
Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals DDN: 2024-D116 Bar Registration No. 486041
BEFORE: Beckwith and Howard, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.
ORDER (FILED—November 27, 2024)
On consideration of the certified order from the state of Utah placing respondent on two years of probation with terms by consent; this court’s October 1, 2024, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response, it is
ORDERED that John C. Heath is hereby placed on a two-year period of probation wherein he must comply with the conditions imposed in Utah. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (stating that the rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).
PER CURIAM
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In re Heath, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-heath-dc-2024.