In re Strachan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Strachan

143 A.3d 1282, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 303, 2016 WL 4259889

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 2016

DocketNo. 16-BG-470

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.3d 1282 (In re Strachan) 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 Strachan, 143 A.3d 1282, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 303, 2016 WL 4259889 (D.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in .that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Strachan, 446 Md. 457, 132 A.3d 291 (2016), this court’s June 3, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension should not be imposed with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness and with the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by the state of Maryland, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court’s show cause order but did file her , affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on July 5, 2016, it is

ORDERED that Laura Hawkins Stra-chan is hereby indefinitely suspended with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, nunc pro tunc to July 5, 2016. Respondent may file for reinstatement after five years or after she is reinstated to practice law in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).

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 Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in .that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Strachan, 446 Md. 457, 132 A.3d 291 (2016), this court’s June 3, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension should not be imposed with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness and with the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by the state of Maryland, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court’s show cause order but did file her , affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on July 5, 2016, it is

ORDERED that Laura Hawkins Stra-chan is hereby indefinitely suspended with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, nunc pro tunc to July 5, 2016. Respondent may file for reinstatement after five years or after she is reinstated to practice law in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.3d 1282, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 303, 2016 WL 4259889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-strachan-dc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack