Case ID: a3d_75/html/0912-02.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 Ross D. HECHT, Respondent.
    No. 13-BG-731.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    BEFORE: FISHER, Associate Judge, and TERRY and REID, Senior Judges.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction with the right to seek reinstatement in six months, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Hecht, 431 Md. 443, 66 A.3d 46 (2013), this court’s July 24, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of a six-month suspension with a fitness condition should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that Ross D. Hecht, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months and reinstatement is contingent on satisfying the fitness requirement. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 488 (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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of 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).