In re Nelson
This text of 677 A.2d 509 (In re Nelson) 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.
Opinion
ORDER
On December 19, 1994, upon consideration of the certified copy of the orders of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, enjoining respondent from the practice of law in Maryland, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, suspending respondent, and pursuant to Rule XI, § 11(d) of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, we ordered respondent suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding. On November 13,1995, the Board on Professional Responsibility filed a report and recommendation that the respondent be suspended indefinitely, based on the action of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, enjoining him from practicing law in Maryland until a psychologist or psychiatrist certifies that he is able to resume his activities as an attorney. Subsequently, the Board notified this court of action taken on December 4, 1995, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent indefinitely by consent from the practice of law in Maryland.
As we said in In re Eileen O’Brien, 665 A.2d 662 (D.C.1995), “[w]e treat [suspension by another jurisdiction] as one warranting reciprocal discipline and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may be imposed pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(e),” Id. at 662, (citing In re Samuels, 648 A.2d 943 (D.C.1994)).1 Accordingly, pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which respondent has filed no exception, it is
ORDERED that respondent, Herbert T. Nelson is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Reinstatement shall be governed by the' terms of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g).2 It is
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent, Herbert T. Nelson shall file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
677 A.2d 509, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 99, 1996 WL 324652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nelson-dc-1996.