Case Name: In re Stephen D. LANDFIELD, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2011-01-13
Citations: 11 A.3d 259
Docket Number: No. 10-BG-1337
Parties: In re Stephen D. LANDFIELD, Respondent.
Judges: Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge, and TERRY and FARRELL, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 11
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
In re Stephen D. LANDFIELD, Respondent.
No. 10-BG-1337.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed Jan. 13, 2011.
Bar Registration No. 388146, BDN: 47-10.
Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Associate Judge, and TERRY and FARRELL, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of six months with the condition of showing fitness prior to reinstatement, this court's November 15, 2010, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order or file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), and it further appearing that respondent was previously suspended for a period of six months with a condition of fitness, see In re Landfield, 955 A.2d 150 (D.C.2008) and respondent has failed to file his affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Stephen D. Landfield, Esquire is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness. This six month suspension shall be served consecutively to his earlier suspension. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C.2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate, including those involving disbarment). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) and completes the suspension imposed pursuant to In re Landfield, 955 A.2d 150 (D.C.2008).