IN RE: THEODORE L. FREEDMAN

134 A.3d 314, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 93, 2016 WL 1393530

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 7, 2016
• Docket: 13-BG-543
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On further consideration of the June 5, 2013, order that suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 10(c) and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility to institute formal proceedings; the certified order accepting respondent’s resignation from the practice of law in the state of New York while disciplinary actions were .pending, this court’s December 23, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why the functional equivalent discipline of a five-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, and- the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to the court’s order- to show cause but did file his D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g) affidavit on June 27,2013, it is

ORDERED that Theodore L. Freedman *s ^ere^y suspended from the practice of ^w in the District of Columbia for a period of five years’ nunc Pro tunc to June 27’ 2013’ and his reinstatement is contingent on a °f fitness. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (rebuttable pre-sumPtion of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).