In re Lacome

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Lacome

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2026

Docket25-BG-0613

StatusPublished

This text of In re Lacome (In re Lacome) 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 Lacome, (D.C. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

Notice: This order is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0613

IN RE JOSEPH LACOME, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 995071 DDN: 2025-D092

BEFORE: Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges.

ORDER (FILED – May 7, 2026)

On consideration of the certified order from the Arizona Supreme Court suspending respondent for six months by consent with the additional condition that he resign from the Arizona State Bar; this court’s July 3, 2025, order suspending respondent pending this matter’s resolution and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of a six-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed; respondent’s response, in which he states that he does not contest the proposed sanction; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and respondent’s D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed August 14, 2025, it is

ORDERED that Joseph Lacome is hereby suspended for six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to August 14, 2025, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that exceptions to the rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline should be rare).

PER CURIAM

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

Notice: This order is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 25-BG-0613

IN RE JOSEPH LACOME, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 995071 DDN: 2025-D092

BEFORE: Beckwith, Easterly, and McLeese, Associate Judges.

ORDER (FILED – May 7, 2026)

On consideration of the certified order from the Arizona Supreme Court suspending respondent for six months by consent with the additional condition that he resign from the Arizona State Bar; this court’s July 3, 2025, order suspending respondent pending this matter’s resolution and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of a six-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed; respondent’s response, in which he states that he does not contest the proposed sanction; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and respondent’s D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed August 14, 2025, it is

ORDERED that Joseph Lacome is hereby suspended for six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to August 14, 2025, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that exceptions to the rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline should be rare).

PER CURIAM

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Lacome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lacome-dc-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack