IN RE: PETER R. ESTES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

IN RE: PETER R. ESTES

144 A.3d 40, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 301, 2016 WL 4180385

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 2016

Docket16-BG-466

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.3d 40 (IN RE: PETER R. ESTES) 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: PETER R. ESTES, 144 A.3d 40, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 301, 2016 WL 4180385 (D.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a 90-day suspension followed by a two-year probationary period with conditions including the payment of restitution, this court’s June 3, 2016, order suspending respondent pending further action of.the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding, reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Peter R. Estes is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a 90-day suspension, to be followed by a two-year probationary period subject to the conditions imposed by the state of California, including the payment of restitution. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (re-buttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER • ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of 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 order of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a 90-day suspension followed by a two-year probationary period with conditions including the payment of restitution, this court’s June 3, 2016, order suspending respondent pending further action of.the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding, reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Peter R. Estes is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a 90-day suspension, to be followed by a two-year probationary period subject to the conditions imposed by the state of California, including the payment of restitution. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (re-buttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER • ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of 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)

144 A.3d 40, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 301, 2016 WL 4180385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-peter-r-estes-dc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack