In re Sutherland

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Sutherland

56 A.3d 1224, 2012 WL 6217603

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

DocketNo. 12-BG-1457

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.3d 1224 (In re Sutherland) 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 Sutherland, 56 A.3d 1224, 2012 WL 6217603 (D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the certified order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law in that jurisdiction, this court’s Oeto-ber 3, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that John A. Sutherland, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007), and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as 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 consideration of the certified order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking respondent’s license to practice law in that jurisdiction, this court’s Oeto-ber 3, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that John A. Sutherland, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007), and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as 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)

56 A.3d 1224, 2012 WL 6217603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sutherland-dc-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack