Case Name: In re Michael S. SUCOLL, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2013-04-04
Citations: 63 A.3d 1058
Docket Number: No. 12-BG-1946
Parties: In re Michael S. SUCOLL, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and TERRY and REID, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 63
Pages: 1058–1059

Head Matter:
In re Michael S. SUCOLL, Respondent.
No. 12-BG-1946.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed April 4, 2013.
BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and TERRY and REID, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order accepting respondent's resignation from the practice of law in the state of Connecticut, after a disciplinary proceeding had commenced, that included a waiver of his right to reapply for later readmission, this court's December 20, 2012, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment 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 the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Michael S. Sucoll is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of five years with reinstatement contingent upon a showing of fitness. See, In re Detlefsen, 6 A.3d 1282 (D.C.2010) (the functional equivalent discipline to a resignation from the practice of law made after the opening of a disciplinary action is a five year suspension with fitness, and such resignations constitute discipline for the purposes of reciprocal discipline). See also, In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 488 (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 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).