In re Rosen

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Rosen

15 A.3d 713, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 143, 2011 WL 1044628

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

DocketNo. 10-BG-1631

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.3d 713 (In re Rosen) 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 Rosen, 15 A.3d 713, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 143, 2011 WL 1044628 (D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent, this court’s January 13, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response either to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Sol Z. Rosen, Esquire is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Bogollagama, 979 A.2d 629 (D.C.2009)(disbarment is the functional equivalent of a revocation imposed in Virginia). Also see In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). 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 order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent, this court’s January 13, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response either to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Sol Z. Rosen, Esquire is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Bogollagama, 979 A.2d 629 (D.C.2009)(disbarment is the functional equivalent of a revocation imposed in Virginia). Also see In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). 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)

15 A.3d 713, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 143, 2011 WL 1044628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosen-dc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack