In re Lancianese

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Lancianese

56 A.3d 782, 2012 WL 6050328

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 2012

DocketNo. 12-BG-1427

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.3d 782 (In re Lancianese) 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 Lancianese, 56 A.3d 782, 2012 WL 6050328 (D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals suspending respondent from the practice of law for three years with a fitness requirement, this court’s September 28, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, the letter of Bar Counsel correcting an error in its previous statement, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file 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 Richard L. Lancianese is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for the period of three years with his reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. See 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). 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 of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals suspending respondent from the practice of law for three years with a fitness requirement, this court’s September 28, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, the letter of Bar Counsel correcting an error in its previous statement, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file 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 Richard L. Lancianese is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for the period of three years with his reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. See 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). 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)

56 A.3d 782, 2012 WL 6050328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lancianese-dc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack