In Re Keh Soo Park

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Keh Soo Park

37 A.3d 869, 2011 WL 7463966

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2011

Docket11-BG-375

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.3d 869 (In Re Keh Soo Park) 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 Keh Soo Park, 37 A.3d 869, 2011 WL 7463966 (D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order and opinion of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent, this court’s April 14, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal disciplines should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, 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 Keh Soo Park, Esquire, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Bogollagama, 979 A.2d 629 (D.C. *870 2009) (disbarment is the functional equivalent of revocation), In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). 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 and opinion of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent, this court’s April 14, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal disciplines should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, 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 Keh Soo Park, Esquire, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Bogollagama, 979 A.2d 629 (D.C. *870 2009) (disbarment is the functional equivalent of revocation), In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). 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)

37 A.3d 869, 2011 WL 7463966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-keh-soo-park-dc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack