In Re Singh

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Singh

29 A.3d 985, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 608, 2011 WL 4975290

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2011

Docket11-BG-836

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.3d 985 (In Re Singh) 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 Singh, 29 A.3d 985, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 608, 2011 WL 4975290 (D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent, see In re Singh, 205 N.J. 87, 13 A.3d 355 (2011), this court’s July 28, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing her to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent’s motion to stay proceedings pending her yet-unfiled motion to re-open her case in New Jersey, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and respondents’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on August 24, 2011, it is

ORDERED that respondent’s motion to stay these proceedings is denied. If respondent files a petition to re-open and is successful in having her New Jersey discipline reconsidered, she may then file a motion to reconsider in this matter. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Ritu Singh, Esquire is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to August 24, 2011. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent, see In re Singh, 205 N.J. 87, 13 A.3d 355 (2011), this court’s July 28, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing her to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent’s motion to stay proceedings pending her yet-unfiled motion to re-open her case in New Jersey, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and respondents’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on August 24, 2011, it is

ORDERED that respondent’s motion to stay these proceedings is denied. If respondent files a petition to re-open and is successful in having her New Jersey discipline reconsidered, she may then file a motion to reconsider in this matter. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Ritu Singh, Esquire is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to August 24, 2011. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.3d 985, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 608, 2011 WL 4975290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-singh-dc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack