In re Slavitt

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Slavitt

4 A.3d 890, 2010 WL 3700241

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 2010

DocketNo. 10-BG-730

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.3d 890 (In re Slavitt) 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 Slavitt, 4 A.3d 890, 2010 WL 3700241 (D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of In re: Slavitt, 449 Mass. 25, 864 N.E.2d 1160 (2007), wherein the Commonwealth of Massachusetts suspended respondent’s license to practice law, respondent’s opposition to proposed order and, in the alternative, motion to show case and the reply of Bar Counsel, and it appearing that respondent, by filing his opposition to proposed order provided his basis why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, it is

ORDERED that Evan M. Slavitt is hereby suspended for a period of two months. Respondent has failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 11(c) and may not re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C.2006). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of In re: Slavitt, 449 Mass. 25, 864 N.E.2d 1160 (2007), wherein the Commonwealth of Massachusetts suspended respondent’s license to practice law, respondent’s opposition to proposed order and, in the alternative, motion to show case and the reply of Bar Counsel, and it appearing that respondent, by filing his opposition to proposed order provided his basis why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, it is

ORDERED that Evan M. Slavitt is hereby suspended for a period of two months. Respondent has failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 11(c) and may not re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C.2006). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.3d 890, 2010 WL 3700241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-slavitt-dc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack