In re Williams

• Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-BG-1146
• Status: Published

Opinion

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 24-BG-1146

IN RE JOHN E. WILLIAMS, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 201442 DDN: 2024-D154

BEFORE: Deahl and Shanker, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.

ORDER (FILED – April 3, 2025)

On consideration of the order from the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspending respondent from the practice of law for thirty days; this court’s December 18, 2024, order suspending respondent pending this matter’s resolution and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel recommending that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response to the show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit; it is

ORDERED that John E. Williams is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for thirty days. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (per curiam) (explaining that exceptions to the rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam) (explaining that the rebuttable presumption 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).

PER CURIAM