Case ID: a3d_157/html/0210-01.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: Sanford B. JAFFE, Respondent.
    Bar Registration No. 358433
    No. 17-BG-25
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    Filed April 6, 2017
    2016 BDN 335
    BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Farrell and Ferren, 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, this court’s February 14, 2017, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension should not be imposed, with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness and with the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by the state of Maryland, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, wherein he states that on March 7, 2017, he received a response from respondent consenting to the imposition of reciprocal discipline and his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Sanford B. Jaffe is hereby indefinitely suspended, nunc pro tunc to March 7, 2017, with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. Respondent may file for reinstatement after five years or after he is reinstated to practice law in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. 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).