In Re MacAulay

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re MacAulay

737 A.2d 552, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 233, 1999 WL 812938

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1999

Docket98-BG-414

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 737 A.2d 552 (In Re MacAulay) 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 MacAulay, 737 A.2d 552, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 233, 1999 WL 812938 (D.C. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On February 26, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“the D.C. Circuit”) publicly reprimanded respondent, Gregory B. Macaulay, for failing to comply with that court’s orders appointing him as counsel under the Criminal Justice Act and directing him to file a brief on behalf of the appellant he was appointed to represent. *553 Bar Counsel filed with this court a certified copy of the D.C. Circuit’s disciplinary order, and on April 7, 1998, this court referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”).

The Board has now filed its report and recommendation. It recommends the imposition of reciprocal discipline in the form of a public censure, a sanction functionally equivalent to the public reprimand issued by the D.C. Circuit. See In re Bell, 716 A.2d 205, 206 (D.C.1998). Bar Counsel has informed the court that he takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent has not filed any opposition 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). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Gregory B. Macaulay be, and he hereby is, publicly censured.

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

PER CURIAM:

On February 26, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“the D.C. Circuit”) publicly reprimanded respondent, Gregory B. Macaulay, for failing to comply with that court’s orders appointing him as counsel under the Criminal Justice Act and directing him to file a brief on behalf of the appellant he was appointed to represent. *553 Bar Counsel filed with this court a certified copy of the D.C. Circuit’s disciplinary order, and on April 7, 1998, this court referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”).

The Board has now filed its report and recommendation. It recommends the imposition of reciprocal discipline in the form of a public censure, a sanction functionally equivalent to the public reprimand issued by the D.C. Circuit. See In re Bell, 716 A.2d 205, 206 (D.C.1998). Bar Counsel has informed the court that he takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent has not filed any opposition 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). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Gregory B. Macaulay be, and he hereby is, publicly censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

737 A.2d 552, 1999 D.C. App. LEXIS 233, 1999 WL 812938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-macaulay-dc-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack