In re Tan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In re Tan

148 A.3d 1175, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 418, 2016 WL 6659499

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2016

DocketBar Registration No. 496860, DDN: 131-16; No. 16-BG-813

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.3d 1175 (In re Tan) 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 Tan, 148 A.3d 1175, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 418, 2016 WL 6659499 (D.C. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of New Jersey, this court’s August 26, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, 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 required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), and it further appearing that respondent remains suspended pursuant to In re Tan, 119 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015), it is

ORDERED that Herbert J. Tan is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); 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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g) 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 disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of New Jersey, this court’s August 26, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, 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 required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), and it further appearing that respondent remains suspended pursuant to In re Tan, 119 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015), it is

ORDERED that Herbert J. Tan is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); 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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.3d 1175, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 418, 2016 WL 6659499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tan-dc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack