Case Name: In re Kenneth A. MARTIN, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2014-02-13
Citations: 91 A.3d 564
Docket Number: No. 11-BG-775
Parties: In re Kenneth A. MARTIN, Respondent.
Judges: Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge; GLICKMAN, *FISHER, * BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, THOMPSON, BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MeLEESE, Associate Judges, and *KING, Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 91
Pages: 564–564

Head Matter:
In re Kenneth A. MARTIN, Respondent.
No. 11-BG-775.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed Feb. 13, 2014.
Bar Registration No. 420600, BDN: 370-04.
Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge; GLICKMAN, *FISHER, * BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, THOMPSON, BECKWITH, EASTERLY, and MeLEESE, Associate Judges, and *KING, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of respondent's, Bar Counsel's, and the Board on Professional Responsibility's (the "Board") petitions for division rehearing, and the Board's petition for rehearing en banc; respondent's response to Bar Counsel's and the Board's petition for division rehearing, Bar Counsel's response to respondent's petition for division rehearing, and Bar Counsel's response to the Board's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc; the Board's response to respondent's and Bar Counsel's petition for division rehearing; and the Board's motion for leave to file the lodged reply to Bar Counsel's response to the Board's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, it is
ORDERED that the Board's motion for leave to file the lodged reply to Bar Counsel's response to the Board's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is granted and the Clerk is directed to file the Board's reply. It is
FURTHER ORDERED by the merits division* that the petitions for rehearing filed by respondent, Bar Counsel, and the Board are denied. The court's opinion filed on March 28, 2013, is hereby reissued on this 13th day of February 2014, in amended form; the citation to In re Tun, 26 A.3d 313, 314 & n. 1 (D.C.2011) (Per Curiam) has been deleted from the second paragraph on page 53. It appearing that no judge of this court has called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.