Case Name: In re James M. CUTSHAW, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2016-07-28
Citations: 143 A.3d 112
Docket Number: No. 13-BG-956
Parties: In re James M. CUTSHAW, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GLICKMAN, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER and FARRELL, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 143
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
In re James M. CUTSHAW, Respondent.
No. 13-BG-956.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed July 28, 2016.
Before: GLICKMAN, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER and FARRELL, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Louisiana for a period of thirty months, this court's September 17, 2013, suspending respondent pending further order of the court, respondent's D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on June 13, 2014, this court's April 19, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent reciprocal discipline of a thirty-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court's order, it is
ORDERED that James M. Cutshaw is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty months, nunc pro tunc to June 13, 2014. Reinstatement is contingent upon 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).