In Re Nguyen

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Nguyen

977 A.2d 345, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 253, 2009 WL 2044054

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 16, 2009

Docket09-BG-344

StatusPublished

This text of 977 A.2d 345 (In Re Nguyen) 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 Nguyen, 977 A.2d 345, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 253, 2009 WL 2044054 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the Virginia State Disciplinary Board’s order accepting respondent’s consent to the revocation of his license to practice law, this court’s May 11, 2009, order directing respondent to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed, his response thereto, and the Statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Bada Phu Nguyen is hereby disbarred. Although respondent filed a response to this court’s order to show cause, his response failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11(c). Nor may respondent re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C.2006). Finally, respondent’s misappropriation in Virginia would also constitute misconduct in this jurisdiction, see D.C. R. Prof. Cond. 1.15(a), disbarment here is the functional equivalent of revocation in Virginia, In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1264 (D.C.2004), and disbarment is within the range of sanctions we impose for misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C.1990) (en banc). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the Virginia State Disciplinary Board’s order accepting respondent’s consent to the revocation of his license to practice law, this court’s May 11, 2009, order directing respondent to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed, his response thereto, and the Statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Bada Phu Nguyen is hereby disbarred. Although respondent filed a response to this court’s order to show cause, his response failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11(c). Nor may respondent re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C.2006). Finally, respondent’s misappropriation in Virginia would also constitute misconduct in this jurisdiction, see D.C. R. Prof. Cond. 1.15(a), disbarment here is the functional equivalent of revocation in Virginia, In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1264 (D.C.2004), and disbarment is within the range of sanctions we impose for misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C.1990) (en banc). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s disbarment will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

977 A.2d 345, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 253, 2009 WL 2044054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nguyen-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack