In Re Samuels

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Samuels

648 A.2d 943, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 185, 1994 WL 578133

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

Docket93-BG-103

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 648 A.2d 943 (In Re Samuels) 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 Samuels, 648 A.2d 943, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 185, 1994 WL 578133 (D.C. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Court of Appeals of Maryland placed respondent on voluntary inactive status provided that, before he is allowed to resume active status, he must demonstrate that he has been restored to good health and is capable of engaging in the competent practice of law. The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that this matter be treated as one warranting reciprocal discipline, 1 and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may and should be imposed pursuant to D.C.Bar R.XI, § 13(e) (suspension upon claim of disability by attorney). Bar Counsel supports this recommendation, and respondent consents to the suspension. We accept the Board’s recommendation.

Accordingly, George J. Samuels is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to May 6, 1993, provided that he files the affidavit required by D.C.Bar R.XI, § 14(f) within 30 days from the date of this opinion. Reinstatement shall be governed by the terms of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g) (attorney eligible for reinstatement after one year, upon showing “by the attorney, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has ended and that the attorney is fit to resume the practice of law”); see also D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(b).

So ordered.

1

. Respondent agreed to be placed on inactive status in Maryland in light of disciplinary charges that were pending against him.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Court of Appeals of Maryland placed respondent on voluntary inactive status provided that, before he is allowed to resume active status, he must demonstrate that he has been restored to good health and is capable of engaging in the competent practice of law. The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that this matter be treated as one warranting reciprocal discipline, 1 and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may and should be imposed pursuant to D.C.Bar R.XI, § 13(e) (suspension upon claim of disability by attorney). Bar Counsel supports this recommendation, and respondent consents to the suspension. We accept the Board’s recommendation.

Accordingly, George J. Samuels is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to May 6, 1993, provided that he files the affidavit required by D.C.Bar R.XI, § 14(f) within 30 days from the date of this opinion. Reinstatement shall be governed by the terms of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g) (attorney eligible for reinstatement after one year, upon showing “by the attorney, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has ended and that the attorney is fit to resume the practice of law”); see also D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(b).

So ordered.

1

. Respondent agreed to be placed on inactive status in Maryland in light of disciplinary charges that were pending against him.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 A.2d 943, 1994 D.C. App. LEXIS 185, 1994 WL 578133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuels-dc-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack