In Re Saul

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Saul

671 A.2d 461, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 21, 1996 WL 88467

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1996

Docket93-BG-1147, 93-BG-1209, 93-BG-1580 and 95-BG-168

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 671 A.2d 461 (In Re Saul) 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 Saul, 671 A.2d 461, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 21, 1996 WL 88467 (D.C. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Respondent was convicted of four counts of bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1988 & Supp. V 1993), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Saul, No. 93-0108-0001 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 1993). The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended respondent’s disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (1995 Repl.) in light of the fact that bank fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude. See In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036, 1037 (D.C.1981). Respondent originally urged that, instead of disbarment, we impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 11 (1995). In the Commonwealth of Virginia, respondent received a five-year suspension, nunc pro tunc to August 3, 1993. In the State of Maryland, respondent received an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply after reinstatement to the Virginia bar. Respondent also was suspended from the practice of law before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending a recommendation of final discipline.

Respondent noted his exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility on August 18, 1995, incorporating by reference Respondent’s Brief in Support of Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline, dated April 17,1995. But then, in October 1995, respondent withdrew his exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, thereby withdrawing as well any objection contained in his earlier filed briefs.

In light of the fact that respondent has withdrawn any exception to the Board’s recommendations, we adopt these recommendations, which are supported by the position taken in Bar Counsel’s reply brief. We therefore order respondent disbarred — nunc pro tunc to October 25, 1993, the date on which he filed the required Rule XI § 14(g) affidavit — pursuant to D.C.Code § 11- *462 2503(a) for commission of a crime involving moral turpitude. Further, we order the reciprocal discipline proceedings pending against Respondent (Nos. 360-93, 460-93, 59-95) dismissed as moot.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

Respondent was convicted of four counts of bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1988 & Supp. V 1993), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Saul, No. 93-0108-0001 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 1993). The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended respondent’s disbarment pursuant to D.C.Code § 11-2503(a) (1995 Repl.) in light of the fact that bank fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude. See In re Rosenbleet, 592 A.2d 1036, 1037 (D.C.1981). Respondent originally urged that, instead of disbarment, we impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 11 (1995). In the Commonwealth of Virginia, respondent received a five-year suspension, nunc pro tunc to August 3, 1993. In the State of Maryland, respondent received an indefinite suspension with the right to reapply after reinstatement to the Virginia bar. Respondent also was suspended from the practice of law before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pending a recommendation of final discipline.

Respondent noted his exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility on August 18, 1995, incorporating by reference Respondent’s Brief in Support of Imposition of Reciprocal Discipline, dated April 17,1995. But then, in October 1995, respondent withdrew his exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, thereby withdrawing as well any objection contained in his earlier filed briefs.

In light of the fact that respondent has withdrawn any exception to the Board’s recommendations, we adopt these recommendations, which are supported by the position taken in Bar Counsel’s reply brief. We therefore order respondent disbarred — nunc pro tunc to October 25, 1993, the date on which he filed the required Rule XI § 14(g) affidavit — pursuant to D.C.Code § 11- *462 2503(a) for commission of a crime involving moral turpitude. Further, we order the reciprocal discipline proceedings pending against Respondent (Nos. 360-93, 460-93, 59-95) dismissed as moot.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 A.2d 461, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 21, 1996 WL 88467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-saul-dc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack