Case Name: In re Sheron A. BARTON, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2014-03-06
Citations: 85 A.3d 1288
Docket Number: No. 13-BG-1227
Parties: In re Sheron A. BARTON, Respondent.
Judges: Before FISHER, Associate Judge, and FERREN and KING, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 85
Pages: 1288–1289

Head Matter:
In re Sheron A. BARTON, Respondent.
No. 13-BG-1227.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed March 6, 2014.
Before FISHER, Associate Judge, and FERREN and KING, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the certified order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland that accepted respondent's resignation in lieu of further discipline, with the right to apply for reinstatement after one year, subject to conditions, this court's November 21, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing her to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a one-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, respondent's motion for reinstatement, the opposition thereto, respondent's second motion for reinstatement and attached exhibit, Bar Counsel's motion for leave to file the lodged late opposition, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause but filed a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit on January 8, 2014, it is
ORDERED the Bar Counsel's motion for leave to file the lodged opposition is granted and the Clerk shall file the lodged opposition. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's motions for reinstatement are denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Sheron A. Barton is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year nunc pro tunc to January 8, 2014. Reinstatement is subject to the conditions imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and 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).