In re Perweiler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Perweiler

761 A.2d 278, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 257, 2000 WL 1641119

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 2000

DocketNo. 99-BG-551

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 761 A.2d 278 (In re Perweiler) 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 Perweiler, 761 A.2d 278, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 257, 2000 WL 1641119 (D.C. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this reciprocal discipline case from Maryland, the Board of Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Bruce E. Perweiler be suspended for six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, and that prior to reinstatement, respondent be required to establish fitness pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d).¹

On March 18, 1999 the Court of Appeals of Maryland entered an order indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that state for two separate instances of misconduct involving failure to provide competent representation and to act with reasonable diligence, mishandling of client funds, failure to return client files and advanced fees, and dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. We entered an order on May 12, 1999, temporarily suspending respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d) and directing the Board to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed.

Our disciplinary rules do not include indefinite suspension within the range of possible sanctions. Therefore, consistent with prior practice involving such Maryland suspensions, the Board has recommended a sanction for the established misconduct appropriate to an original disciplinary action in the District. See In re Dietz, 675 A.2d 33 (D.C.1996) (per cu-riam). Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed any exception to the Board’s recommendation. In these circumstances, “[t]he deferential standard mandated by [D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)] becomes even more deferential.” In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.1995). Accordingly, we accept the recommendation of the Board. See, e.g., In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc). It is therefore

ORDERED that respondent be and he hereby is suspended, effective forthwith, for the period of six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, with a requirement of proof of fitness for reinstatement pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d). Respondent’s attention is drawn to the provisions of D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 14 and 16(c) with respect to the obligations [279]*279imposed upon suspended attorneys² and their relation to the timing of eligibility for reinstatement.

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

PER CURIAM:

In this reciprocal discipline case from Maryland, the Board of Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Bruce E. Perweiler be suspended for six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, and that prior to reinstatement, respondent be required to establish fitness pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d).¹

On March 18, 1999 the Court of Appeals of Maryland entered an order indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that state for two separate instances of misconduct involving failure to provide competent representation and to act with reasonable diligence, mishandling of client funds, failure to return client files and advanced fees, and dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. We entered an order on May 12, 1999, temporarily suspending respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d) and directing the Board to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed.

Our disciplinary rules do not include indefinite suspension within the range of possible sanctions. Therefore, consistent with prior practice involving such Maryland suspensions, the Board has recommended a sanction for the established misconduct appropriate to an original disciplinary action in the District. See In re Dietz, 675 A.2d 33 (D.C.1996) (per cu-riam). Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed any exception to the Board’s recommendation. In these circumstances, “[t]he deferential standard mandated by [D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)] becomes even more deferential.” In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.1995). Accordingly, we accept the recommendation of the Board. See, e.g., In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc). It is therefore

ORDERED that respondent be and he hereby is suspended, effective forthwith, for the period of six months from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, with a requirement of proof of fitness for reinstatement pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d). Respondent’s attention is drawn to the provisions of D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 14 and 16(c) with respect to the obligations [279]*279imposed upon suspended attorneys² and their relation to the timing of eligibility for reinstatement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

761 A.2d 278, 2000 D.C. App. LEXIS 257, 2000 WL 1641119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-perweiler-dc-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack