In re: Robert Wilkey

130 A.3d 950
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 26, 2014
Docket14-BG-1000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.3d 950 (In re: Robert Wilkey) 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: Robert Wilkey, 130 A.3d 950 (D.C. 2014).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law with the right to apply for reinstatement in eighteen months, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Jordan, 439 Md. 325, 96 A.3d 142 (2014), this court’s September 24, 2014, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline in the form of a suspension for a period of eighteen months, with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness, should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent filed timely affidavits as required by In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Laura E. Jordan is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of eighteen months, nunc pro tunc to August 18, 2014. Reinstatement is contingent upon a showing of fitness. See In re Sib *951 ley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007).

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

Related

In re Berry
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 A.3d 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-wilkey-dc-2014.