In Re Tanko

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Tanko

976 A.2d 176, 2009 WL 2175855

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 23, 2009

Docket09-BG-436

StatusPublished

This text of 976 A.2d 176 (In Re Tanko) 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 Tanko, 976 A.2d 176, 2009 WL 2175855 (D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for a period of sixty days, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404, 969 A.2d 1010 (2009), this court’s May 18, 2009, order that suspended respondent from the practice of law pending action of the court and directed him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the Statement of Bar Counsel recommending reciprocal and identical sixty-day suspension be imposed, and it appearing that respondent has failed to respond or file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Louis Peter Tanko, Jr. is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of sixty days. See In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc); In re Uchendu, 812 A.2d 933 (D.C.2002). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension will begin upon the filing of an affidavit in compliance with 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 order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for a period of sixty days, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Tanko, 408 Md. 404, 969 A.2d 1010 (2009), this court’s May 18, 2009, order that suspended respondent from the practice of law pending action of the court and directed him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the Statement of Bar Counsel recommending reciprocal and identical sixty-day suspension be imposed, and it appearing that respondent has failed to respond or file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Louis Peter Tanko, Jr. is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of sixty days. See In re Reback, 513 A.2d 226 (D.C.1986) (en banc); In re Uchendu, 812 A.2d 933 (D.C.2002). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension will begin upon the filing of an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

976 A.2d 176, 2009 WL 2175855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tanko-dc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack