In Re Hill

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Hill

996 A.2d 823, 2010 WL 2194799

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 2010

Docket10-BG-298

StatusPublished

This text of 996 A.2d 823 (In Re Hill) 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 Hill, 996 A.2d 823, 2010 WL 2194799 (D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarring respondent by consent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Atty. Grievance Comm’n v. Hill, Misc. Docket AG No. 14 & 21, 411 Md. 587, 984 A.2d 236 (2009), this court’s March 23, 2010, order suspending respondent 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 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 John L. Hill, Esquire, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension 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 Maryland Court of Appeals disbarring respondent by consent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Atty. Grievance Comm’n v. Hill, Misc. Docket AG No. 14 & 21, 411 Md. 587, 984 A.2d 236 (2009), this court’s March 23, 2010, order suspending respondent 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 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 John L. Hill, Esquire, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension 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)

996 A.2d 823, 2010 WL 2194799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hill-dc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack