In Re Tanko

976 A.2d 176, 2009 WL 2175855
District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 23, 2009·No. 09-BG-436·Published

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

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

976 A.2d 176 (In Re Tanko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Reback
513 A.2d 226 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)
In Re Uchendu
812 A.2d 933 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2002)
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tanko
969 A.2d 1010 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2009)