In re Marshall

171 A.3d 183
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 2017·No. No. 17-BG-695·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified consent order from the state of Virginia that imposed an indefinite impairment suspension, this court’s July 21, 2017, order suspend[184] ing respondent and directing her to show cause why she should not be indefinitely suspended pursuant to a disability suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI § 13, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response to the court’s order or a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Kimberly L. Marshall is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI13. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is'directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 13 (g) for reinstatement, as well as D.C., Bar R. XI § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of Rule XI § 16 (c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI § 14, including the filing of the required affidavit.

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

In re Marshall, 171 A.3d 183 (D.C. 2017).

171 A.3d 183 (In re Marshall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.