In re Stanley

769 A.2d 141, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 61, 2001 WL 253052
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 15, 2001·No. No. 99-BG-54·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On December 14, 1998, the Court of Appeals of Maryland placed respondent, Denise R. Stanley, on inactive status by consent. At the time, respondent was facing three disciplinary complaints alleging that she failed to communicate with her clients on a timely basis. In the petition filed jointly with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, respondent asserted that she was suffering from and being treated for depression that rendered her unable to provide adequate legal services to her clients.1

On February 8, 1999, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board recommends reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension based on disability, with reinstatement governed by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g)-

Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent did not contest reciprocal discipline in the proceedings before the Board and has not filed any opposition to the Board’s report and recommendation. The action recommended by the Board is an appropriate reciprocal response when an attorney is placed on inactive status in Maryland based on an asserted disability. In re Cornish, 691 A.2d 156 (D.C.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 867, 118 S.Ct. 176, 189 L.Ed.2d 117 (1997). Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt the Board’s recommendation. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 882, 834 (D.C.1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Denise R. Stanley be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Reinstatement shall be governed by the terms of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g). We note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14. We direct respondent’s attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on her eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).

So ordered.

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

In re Stanley, 769 A.2d 141, 2001 D.C. App. LEXIS 61, 2001 WL 253052 (D.C. 2001).

769 A.2d 141 (In re Stanley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Alpert
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2026
In re Stewart
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2024
In re Angelos
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2023
In re Bostick
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2023
In re Robinson
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2022
In re McDonough
6 A.3d 1283 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In Re Stanley
982 A.2d 1146 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)