In re: Jared E. Stolz

108 A.3d 1249, 2015 D.C. App. LEXIS 22, 2015 WL 543083

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 5, 2015
• Docket: 14-BG-1167
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of New Jersey for a period of three months and until further order of the court, this court’s November 4, 2014, order directing respondent to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form of a three-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either 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 Jared E. Stolz is hereby suspended for a period of three months with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010); 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 suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.