In Re Shmuckler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Shmuckler

978 A.2d 182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 2252264

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 30, 2009

Docket07-BG-389, 07-BG-702

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 978 A.2d 182 (In Re Shmuckler) 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 Shmuckler, 978 A.2d 182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 2252264 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Howard R. Shmuckler be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (2001), because he was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) and (2) by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Bar Counsel has taken no exception to the-Board’s report. Respondent’s opposition challenges the underlying facts that led to the bankruptcy fraud conviction, but does not dispute the fact that he was convicted. Since bankruptcy fraud is a crime that inherently involves moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory, and we accept the Board’s recommendation. See In re Standard, 788 A.2d 154, 154 (D.C.2001) (per curiam). Because this resolves the matter it is unnecessary to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed in light of respondent’s disbarment by the State of California following his convictions. See In re Sugarman, 677 A.2d 1049, 1050 (D.C.1996) (per curiam). Thus, the reciprocal action is dismissed as moot. See In re Leffler, 940 A.2d 105, 106 (D.C.2007) (per curiam).

Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia effective immediately. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment shall be deemed to commence on the day respondent files an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331-33 (D.C.1994).

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent Howard R. Shmuckler be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a) (2001), because he was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) and (2) by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Bar Counsel has taken no exception to the-Board’s report. Respondent’s opposition challenges the underlying facts that led to the bankruptcy fraud conviction, but does not dispute the fact that he was convicted. Since bankruptcy fraud is a crime that inherently involves moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory, and we accept the Board’s recommendation. See In re Standard, 788 A.2d 154, 154 (D.C.2001) (per curiam). Because this resolves the matter it is unnecessary to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed in light of respondent’s disbarment by the State of California following his convictions. See In re Sugarman, 677 A.2d 1049, 1050 (D.C.1996) (per curiam). Thus, the reciprocal action is dismissed as moot. See In re Leffler, 940 A.2d 105, 106 (D.C.2007) (per curiam).

Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia effective immediately. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment shall be deemed to commence on the day respondent files an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331-33 (D.C.1994).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

978 A.2d 182, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 335, 2009 WL 2252264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shmuckler-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack