Case Name: In re Marta M. BERTOLA, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 67 A.3d 1058
Docket Number: No. 13-BG-334; Bar Registration No. 447898, BDN: 34-13
Parties: In re Marta M. BERTOLA, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: GLICKMAN, Associate Judge, and TERRY and STEADMAN, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 67
Pages: 1058–1059

Head Matter:
In re Marta M. BERTOLA, Respondent.
No. 13-BG-334.
Bar Registration No. 447898, BDN: 34-13.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
June 13, 2013.
BEFORE: GLICKMAN, Associate Judge, and TERRY and STEADMAN, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the certified order indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Maryland, with the right to seek reinstatement after 60 days, see Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Bertola, 430 Md. 6, 58 A.3d 1151 (2013), this court's April 12, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing her to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of a 60 day suspension with fitness 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 file an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Marta M. Bertola is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 60 days with reinstatement 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). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's period of suspension will not begin to run until such time as she files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar R. XI, § 14(g).