IN RE: STEVEN H. BERKOWITZ

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

IN RE: STEVEN H. BERKOWITZ

144 A.3d 564, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 302, 2016 WL 4262013

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 2016

Docket16-BG-469

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A.3d 564 (IN RE: STEVEN H. BERKOWITZ) 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: STEVEN H. BERKOWITZ, 144 A.3d 564, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 302, 2016 WL 4262013 (D.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order changing respondent’s status to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania to disability inactive and staying the resolution of his pending disciplinary grievance, this court’s June 3, 2016, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why he should not be indefinitely suspended pursuant to a disability suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI § 13, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to’ file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is'

ORDERED that Steven H. Berkowitz is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, that respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of. Rule XI § 16(c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to *565 compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI § 14, including the filing of the required affidavit.

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 changing respondent’s status to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania to disability inactive and staying the resolution of his pending disciplinary grievance, this court’s June 3, 2016, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why he should not be indefinitely suspended pursuant to a disability suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI § 13, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to’ file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is'

ORDERED that Steven H. Berkowitz is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, that respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of. Rule XI § 16(c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to *565 compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI § 14, including the filing of the required affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.3d 564, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 302, 2016 WL 4262013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steven-h-berkowitz-dc-2016.