In re Larson-Jackson

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Docket: 25-BG-0588
• Status: Published

Opinion

Notice: This opinion 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-0588

IN RE STEVE LARSON-JACKSON, RESPONDENT.

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 414847)

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN No. 23-BD-045; DDN Nos. 2017-D280, 2019-D298, 2020-D207, 2022-D0l l)

(Decided November 13, 2025)

Before: MCLEESE and DEAHL, Associate Judges, and THOMPSON, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that

Steve Larson-Jackson be disbarred from the practice of law for multiple instances of

intentional misappropriation and violation of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct

1.5(a), 1.15(a), and 8.4(c), and Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.1,

19-301.5(a), 19-301.15(a), 19-308.4(c), and 19-308.4(d). This court has previously

concluded that disbarment is generally the appropriate sanction for intentional 2

misappropriation. 1 Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s Report

and Recommendation.

Under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s

report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the

Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.” See also In

re Viehe, 762 A.2d 542, 543 (D.C. 2000) (“When . . . there are no exceptions to the

Board’s report and recommendation, our deferential standard of review becomes

even more deferential.”). Because no exceptions have been filed and disbarment is

presumptively the appropriate sanction for intentional misappropriation, we accept

the Board’s recommendation that respondent be disbarred.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Disciplinary Counsel’s motion to impose recommended

discipline is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent Steve Larson-Jackson is hereby

disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction. Respondent’s attention is

1 See In re Owens, 341 A.3d 1151, 1163 (D.C. 2025) (“[T]he intentional or reckless misappropriation of client funds will trigger the virtually automatic sanction of disbarment absent extraordinary mitigating circumstances.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). 3

directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 and their effect on eligibility

for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.