IN RE: JAMES M. CUTSHAW

143 A.3d 112
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 28, 2016·No. 16-BG-422·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Louisiana for a period of thirty months, this court’s September 17, 2013, suspending respondent pending further order of the court, respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on June 13, 2014, this court’s April 19, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent reciprocal discipline of a thirty-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s order, it is

ORDERED that James M. Cutshaw is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty months, nunc pro tunc to June 13, 2014. Reinstatement is contingent upon a showing of fitness. See 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 *113 applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).

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

IN RE: JAMES M. CUTSHAW, 143 A.3d 112 (D.C. 2016).

143 A.3d 112 (IN RE: JAMES M. CUTSHAW) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Sibley
990 A.2d 483 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)