Case Name: In re James C. UNDERHILL, Jr., Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2015-11-05
Citations: 125 A.3d 711
Docket Number: No. 13-BG-38
Parties: In re James C. UNDERHILL, Jr., Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge, and NEWMAN and FERREN, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 125
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
In re James C. UNDERHILL, Jr., Respondent.
No. 13-BG-38.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed Nov. 5, 2015.
Bar Registration No. 297762, BDN: 388-12.
BEFORE: BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge, and NEWMAN and FERREN, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order revoking respondent's previously imposed probation in the state of Colorado and reinstating the previously stayed three-month and one-day suspension with reinstatement contingent on his filing a petition for reinstatement, this court August 25, 2015, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause or an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that the probation imposed on James, C. Underhill, Jr., is hereby revoked and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of three months and one day with reinstatement condition 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 the period of respondent's suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.