In Re Kirkiles

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Kirkiles

779 A.2d 357, 2001 WL 950673

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2001

Docket00-BG-518

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 779 A.2d 357 (In Re Kirkiles) 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 Kirkiles, 779 A.2d 357, 2001 WL 950673 (D.C. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Demetrios C. Kirkiles is a member of the Florida Bar and the bar of this court. In March 1999, the Supreme Court of Florida publicly reprimanded respondent after he pled guilty to several disciplinary charges. Specifically, respondent admitted to failing to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and attempting to improperly limit his malpractice liability to a client.

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommends reciprocal discipline of a public censure. A public censure is functionally equivalent to the public reprimand issued by the Supreme Court of Florida. See In re Macaulay, 737 A.2d 562, 553 (D.C.1999); In re Dreier, 651 A.2d 312 (D.C.1994). Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent objects to the Board’s report and recommendation. Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt the Board’s recommendation. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Demetrios C. Kirkiles be and hereby is publicly censured.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Demetrios C. Kirkiles is a member of the Florida Bar and the bar of this court. In March 1999, the Supreme Court of Florida publicly reprimanded respondent after he pled guilty to several disciplinary charges. Specifically, respondent admitted to failing to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and attempting to improperly limit his malpractice liability to a client.

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommends reciprocal discipline of a public censure. A public censure is functionally equivalent to the public reprimand issued by the Supreme Court of Florida. See In re Macaulay, 737 A.2d 562, 553 (D.C.1999); In re Dreier, 651 A.2d 312 (D.C.1994). Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent objects to the Board’s report and recommendation. Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt the Board’s recommendation. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Demetrios C. Kirkiles be and hereby is publicly censured.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 A.2d 357, 2001 WL 950673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kirkiles-dc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack