Case ID: a3d_195/html/0482-02.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 Corey BRINSON
    A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Reg. No. 981557
    No. 18-BG-845
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
    FILED - October 25, 2018
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Connecticut suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Connecticut for six years, with the right to seek reinstatement after May 10, 2021, if his supervised release has concluded and subject to conditions set by that court, this court's August 16, 2018, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; the motion of Disciplinary Counsel for leave to file attachments to its previously filed response; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court's show cause order or the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that the motion of Disciplinary Counsel is granted and the Clerk shall file the documents attached to the motion. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Corey Brinson is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six years with the right to seek reinstatement after May 10, 2021, if respondent's supervised release has concluded and he has complied with all conditions imposed by the state of Connecticut, including the payment of the court-ordered restitution in the amount of $1,417,810. In addition, reinstatement is contingent on a showing of fitness. 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). 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 a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.