In re Karl Blanke

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Karl Blanke

190 A.3d 1000

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 2, 2018

Docket18-BG-568

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.3d 1000 (In re Karl Blanke) 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 Karl Blanke, 190 A.3d 1000 (D.C. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order revoking respondent's right to practice law in the state of Virginia by consent; this court's June 5, 2018, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why the functionally identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to the court's order or file his required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Karl Blanke is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. 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 disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

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

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order revoking respondent's right to practice law in the state of Virginia by consent; this court's June 5, 2018, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why the functionally identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to the court's order or file his required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Karl Blanke is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. 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 disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.3d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-karl-blanke-dc-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack