Case ID: a3d_89/html/1065-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re George J. GEESING, Respondent.
    No. 14-BG-109.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Filed May 1, 2014.
    BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and PRYOR and NEBEKER, Senior Judges.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of 90 days, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Geesing, 436 Md. 56, 80 A.3d 718 (2013), this court’s February 12, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of a 90-day suspension should not be imposed, and the statements of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent filed an affidavit that satisfies the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) and In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), it is

ORDERED that George J. Geesing, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 90 days nunc pro tunc to January 2, 2014. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).