Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

District of Columbia

Court of Appeals

No. 19-BG-277

IN RE MELINDA MALDONADO

2019 DDN 63

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 483919

BEFORE: Fisher, Thompson, and Easterly, Associate Judges. 

O R D E R

(FILED- June 6, 2019)

On consideration of the opinion and certified order of the state of Maryland 

wherein the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that respondent should be disbarred, 

in part, for her extended unauthorized practice of law, resulting in respondent, as a 

non-admitted attorney in Maryland, being “excluded from exercising the privilege 

of practicing law” in that state, see Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. 

Maldonado, 203 A.3d 841 (Md. 2019); this court’s April 9, 2019, order suspending 

respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing her to show cause why 

she should not be disbarred in this jurisdiction as reciprocal discipline; respondent’s 

response and two additional lodged responses and exhibits; the statement of 

Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and the reply thereto; 

respondent’s motions to supplement the record with her previously filed additional 

documents and for oral argument and the opposition thereto, and it appearing that 

respondent filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit on May 14, 2019, it is 

ORDERED sua sponte that respondent’s lodged supplemental responses to 

the court’s order are filed. It is 
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s motions to supplement the record 

and for oral argument are denied and all documents that are not part of the record on 

appeal, including Exhibit I (Part I and II), are hereby struck. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Melinda Maldonado is hereby disbarred from the 

practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to May 14, 2019. See, 

e.g., In re Shephard, 128 A.3d 633 (D.C. 2015); In re Barneys, 861 A.2d 1270, 1273 

(D.C. 2004) (supporting the imposition of disbarment as reciprocal discipline where 

the state of Maryland found that the actions of a non-barred attorney in that state 

justified disbarment and excluded the attorney from exercising the privilege of 

practicing law in that state). To the extent respondent attempts to challenge the 

imposition of reciprocal discipline by requesting de novo review by this court of the 

underlying factual findings and discipline imposed by the State of Maryland, such a 

challenge is improper in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings. Further, as we do not 

review the evidence de novo or accept additional information in reciprocal 

disciplinary cases, we decline to review evidence or exhibits that respondent has 

annotated and submitted. See In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) 

(“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign 

discipline.”). Therefore, because respondent failed to rebut the presumption that 

reciprocal discipline should be imposed, we impose reciprocal discipline. 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 unless one of the 

exceptions is established). 

PER CURIAM