In Re Silverman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Silverman

981 A.2d 578, 2009 WL 2876847

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 2009

Docket09-BG-750

StatusPublished

This text of 981 A.2d 578 (In Re Silverman) 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 Silverman, 981 A.2d 578, 2009 WL 2876847 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*579 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On further consideration of the certified copy of the order issued by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspending respondent for 60 days, see In the Matter of Leslie Dana Silverman, VSB Docket Nos. 07-052-2031 and 07-052-2323 (May 21, 2009), this court’s July 21, 2009, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending final disposition by this court, and directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and there appearing to be no response from respondent to the show cause order, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it further appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that respondent, Leslie D. Silverman, be and hereby is suspended for a period of 60 days. See In re Meisler, 776 A.2d 1207, 1208 (D.C.2001) (“In reciprocal discipline cases, the presumption is that the discipline in the District of Columbia will be the same as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction.”); In re Sumner, 762 A.2d 528 (D.C.2000) (In uncontested reciprocal discipline cases, absent a finding of grave injustice, this court will impose identical reciprocal discipline); In re Kennedy, 542 A.2d 1225 (D.C.1988) (90-day suspension for continuing to practice law after suspended for failure to pay dues). Additionally, since respondent has failed to file the required affidavit, her suspension is deemed to commence for purposes of reinstatement upon the filing of an affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

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

*579 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On further consideration of the certified copy of the order issued by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspending respondent for 60 days, see In the Matter of Leslie Dana Silverman, VSB Docket Nos. 07-052-2031 and 07-052-2323 (May 21, 2009), this court’s July 21, 2009, order suspending respondent from the practice of law pending final disposition by this court, and directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and there appearing to be no response from respondent to the show cause order, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it further appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that respondent, Leslie D. Silverman, be and hereby is suspended for a period of 60 days. See In re Meisler, 776 A.2d 1207, 1208 (D.C.2001) (“In reciprocal discipline cases, the presumption is that the discipline in the District of Columbia will be the same as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction.”); In re Sumner, 762 A.2d 528 (D.C.2000) (In uncontested reciprocal discipline cases, absent a finding of grave injustice, this court will impose identical reciprocal discipline); In re Kennedy, 542 A.2d 1225 (D.C.1988) (90-day suspension for continuing to practice law after suspended for failure to pay dues). Additionally, since respondent has failed to file the required affidavit, her suspension is deemed to commence for purposes of reinstatement upon the filing of an affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

981 A.2d 578, 2009 WL 2876847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-silverman-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack