IN re Leone

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 20, 2023
• Docket: 23-BG-0067
• 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. 23-BG-0067

IN RE JAMES R. LEONE, DDN: 2022-D125 An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 955468

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and Howard, Associate Judges.

ORDER (FILED—April 20, 2023)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Florida permanently revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent; this court’s February, 6, 2023, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of disbarment should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that James R. Leone is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (stating that the rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate); see also In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. 2004) (explaining that the equivalent sanction for revocation in the District is disbarment). It is No. 23-BG-0067

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s disbarment 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).

PER CURIAM