In Re Smith

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Smith

965 A.2d 860, 2009 WL 395126

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 2009

Docket08-BG-1604

StatusPublished

This text of 965 A.2d 860 (In Re Smith) 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 Smith, 965 A.2d 860, 2009 WL 395126 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On further consideration of the certified copy of the order from the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for a period of six months, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 405 Md. 107, 950 A.2d 101 (2008), this court’s January 5, 2009, order that suspended respondent from the practice of law pending further action of the court and directed him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, his response and the Statement of Bar Counsel agreeing that reciprocal and identical six-month suspension should be imposed and that, contingent on the timely filing of a supplemental affidavit, that the suspension coincide with the Maryland suspension that commenced on July 13, 2008, it is

ORDERED that Patrick J. Smith is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months. See In re Abrahamson, 852 A.2d 949 (D.C.2004). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension shall run nunc pro tunc to July 13, 2008, the date of his Maryland suspension, provided that he file a satisfactory supple *861 mental D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit within twenty days of the date of this order; otherwise, respondent’s suspension shall run from the date he files an affidavit that conforms to the requirements of that rule.

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 the order from the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for a period of six months, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Smith, 405 Md. 107, 950 A.2d 101 (2008), this court’s January 5, 2009, order that suspended respondent from the practice of law pending further action of the court and directed him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, his response and the Statement of Bar Counsel agreeing that reciprocal and identical six-month suspension should be imposed and that, contingent on the timely filing of a supplemental affidavit, that the suspension coincide with the Maryland suspension that commenced on July 13, 2008, it is

ORDERED that Patrick J. Smith is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months. See In re Abrahamson, 852 A.2d 949 (D.C.2004). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension shall run nunc pro tunc to July 13, 2008, the date of his Maryland suspension, provided that he file a satisfactory supple *861 mental D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit within twenty days of the date of this order; otherwise, respondent’s suspension shall run from the date he files an affidavit that conforms to the requirements of that rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

965 A.2d 860, 2009 WL 395126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack