In re Yanowitch

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 1, 2022
Docket22-BG-732
StatusPublished

This text of In re Yanowitch (In re Yanowitch) 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 Yanowitch, (D.C. 2022).

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. 22-BG-732

IN RE PETER J. YANOWITCH DDN: 2021-D178 A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 424037

BEFORE: McLeese and Howard, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge.

ORDER (FILED— December 1, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Florida suspending respondent from the practice of law by consent for 90 days; this court’s September 30, 2022, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit on October 4, 2022, wherein he states that his suspension in the state of Florida began on September 8, 2021, and that he has not practiced law in this jurisdiction since that date, it is

ORDERED that Peter J. Yanowitch is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 90 days, nunc pro tunc to September 8, 2021. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate); In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982, 985 (D.C. 1983) (holding that where an attorney promptly notifies Disciplinary Counsel of the original discipline and refrains from practicing law in the District during the period of suspension in the original jurisdiction, reciprocal discipline shall run concurrent with the original discipline).

PER CURIAM

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Sibley
990 A.2d 483 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2010)
In Re Fuller
930 A.2d 194 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2007)
Matter of Goldberg
460 A.2d 982 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re Yanowitch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yanowitch-dc-2022.