In re O'Donnell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re O'Donnell

50 A.3d 475, 2012 WL 2044353

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2012

DocketNos. 11-BG-1523, 12-BG-36

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.3d 475 (In re O'Donnell) 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 O'Donnell, 50 A.3d 475, 2012 WL 2044353 (D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified orders of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent for a combined period of two years, all but 120 days stayed, followed by a two-year probation, this court’s December 20, 2011, and January 31, 2012, orders suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal disciplines should not be imposed, the statement of respondent, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a Goldberg affidavit, see In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (1983), or a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

[476]*476ORDERED that Pierce Henry O’Donnell is hereby suspended for a period of two years, all but 120 days stayed, followed by a two-year probationary period. Mr. O’Donnell must comply with all conditions imposed by the state of California. It is

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

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified orders of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent for a combined period of two years, all but 120 days stayed, followed by a two-year probation, this court’s December 20, 2011, and January 31, 2012, orders suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal disciplines should not be imposed, the statement of respondent, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a Goldberg affidavit, see In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (1983), or a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

[476]*476ORDERED that Pierce Henry O’Donnell is hereby suspended for a period of two years, all but 120 days stayed, followed by a two-year probationary period. Mr. O’Donnell must comply with all conditions imposed by the state of California. It is

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.3d 475, 2012 WL 2044353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-odonnell-dc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack