In re Prado

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Prado

785 A.2d 295, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 231, 2001 WL 1338456

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2001

DocketNo. 99-BG-1647

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 785 A.2d 295 (In re Prado) 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 Prado, 785 A.2d 295, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 231, 2001 WL 1338456 (D.C. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Rafael A. Prado, a member of the bar of this court, was suspended by the Supreme Court of New Jersey from the practice of law for a period of three months. The Board on Professional Responsibility has determined that the misconduct established in the New Jersey proceeding warrants substantially different discipline in this jurisdiction, and recommends disbarment. See D.C.App. R. XI, § 11(c)(4). We agree with the Board that the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s disciplinary violations included reckless, if not intentional, misappropriation of client funds, for which the substantially different sanction of disbarment is the norm in the District of Columbia. See In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330 (D.C.2001); In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc). As neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has taken exception to the Board’s report, “the Court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board.” D.C.App. R. XI, § 11(f)(1). See In re Dixon, 763 A.2d 730, 732 (D.C.2000); In re Richards, 764 A.2d 254, 255 (D.C.2000). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Rafael A. Prado is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. As respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), we direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Rafael A. Prado, a member of the bar of this court, was suspended by the Supreme Court of New Jersey from the practice of law for a period of three months. The Board on Professional Responsibility has determined that the misconduct established in the New Jersey proceeding warrants substantially different discipline in this jurisdiction, and recommends disbarment. See D.C.App. R. XI, § 11(c)(4). We agree with the Board that the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s disciplinary violations included reckless, if not intentional, misappropriation of client funds, for which the substantially different sanction of disbarment is the norm in the District of Columbia. See In re Anderson, 778 A.2d 330 (D.C.2001); In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc). As neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has taken exception to the Board’s report, “the Court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board.” D.C.App. R. XI, § 11(f)(1). See In re Dixon, 763 A.2d 730, 732 (D.C.2000); In re Richards, 764 A.2d 254, 255 (D.C.2000). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Rafael A. Prado is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. As respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), we direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 A.2d 295, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 231, 2001 WL 1338456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-prado-dc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack