In Re Hornbeck

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Hornbeck

995 A.2d 227, 2010 WL 1995839

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2010

Docket10-BG-199

StatusPublished

This text of 995 A.2d 227 (In Re Hornbeck) 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 Hornbeck, 995 A.2d 227, 2010 WL 1995839 (D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Tennessee Supreme Court placing respondent on disability inactive status, see In re Sean K. Hornbeck, BOPR No. 2008-1794-5-KH (4.3) (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2008,) this court’s March 19, 2010, 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 ap *228 pearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that Sean K. Hornbeck, is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia based upon the existence of an apparent disability. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will be deemed to run from the date on which he files an affidavit compliant with 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 Tennessee Supreme Court placing respondent on disability inactive status, see In re Sean K. Hornbeck, BOPR No. 2008-1794-5-KH (4.3) (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2008,) this court’s March 19, 2010, 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 ap *228 pearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that Sean K. Hornbeck, is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia based upon the existence of an apparent disability. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(c). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will be deemed to run from the date on which he files an affidavit compliant with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

995 A.2d 227, 2010 WL 1995839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hornbeck-dc-2010.