In re: Scott J. Bloch

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 5, 2015
• Docket: 10-BG-1537 & 14-BG-1347
• Status: Published

Opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS FILED [5/

. District f Nos. 10-BG-1537 & 14-BG-1347 c ' n 353$?“ . 4. IN RE: SCOTT J. BLOCH, Ju Castillo ' Respondent. Clerk Of CW"

Bar Registration No. 984264 BDN: 173—10

BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and F erren and Farrell, Senior Judges.

ORDER (FILED - February 5, 2015)

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a thirty-day suspension followed by a two-year probationary period with conditions, this court’s December 29, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent’s response stating that he did not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, the motion of Bar Counsel to consolidate these two cases and dismiss the original disciplinary matter, and respondent’s unopposed motion for reinstatement, and it appearing that respondent filed an affidavit that satisfied the requirements of DC. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) on December 30, 2014, and an affidavit that satisfied the requirements of In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (DC. 1983), on December 15, 2014, it is

ORDERED that Bar Counsel’s motion to consolidate these two matters is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Scott J. Bloch, in no. 14—BG_-1347 is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a thirty-day suspension, nunc pro tune to December 15, 2014,

to be followed by a two~year probationary period. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (DC. 2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (DC. 2007) (rebuttable presumption

we

Nos. lO—BG-1537 & 14-BG-1347

of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the original disciplinary matter, no. lO-BG—1537, is hereby dismissed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’ s unopposed motion for reinstatement is hereby granted as he has served his non-stayed thirty-day suspension.

PER CURIAM