Case ID: a3d_159/html/0303-01.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 Peter R. ESTES, Respondent.
    No. 17-BG-239
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    FILED—May 18, 2017
    Bar Registration No. 358466, DDN 235-16
    BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, McLeese, Associate Judge, and Farrell, Senior Judge.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California disbarring respondent from the practice of law in California; this court’s March 13, 2017, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s show cause order or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit; and it further appearing that respondent was previously suspended from the practice of law, see In re Estes, 144 A.3d 40 (D.C. 2016), and failed to file the required affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Peter R. Estes is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the “imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic”). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for the purposes of reinstatement the time for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.