Case Name: In re Chandra Mahinda BOGOLLAGAMA, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2009-08-20
Citations: 979 A.2d 629
Docket Number: Bar Registration No. 418491; No. 09-BG-401
Parties: In re Chandra Mahinda BOGOLLAGAMA, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: FISHER and OBERLY, Associate Judges, and KERN, Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 979
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
In re Chandra Mahinda BOGOLLAGAMA, Respondent.
Bar Registration No. 418491.
No. 09-BG-401.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Aug. 20, 2009.
BEFORE: FISHER and OBERLY, Associate Judges, and KERN, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
On further consideration of the certified copy of the Circuit Court of Virginia's order revoking respondent's license to practice law, this court's May 18, 2009, order directing respondent to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed, his responses thereto, and the Statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Chandra Mahinda Bo-gollagama is hereby disbarred. Respondent has failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 11(c) and may not re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2006). Finally, respondent's misappropriation in Virginia would also constitute misconduct in this jurisdiction, see D.C. R. Prof. Cond. 1.15 a, disbarment here is the functional equivalent of revocation in Virginia, In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1264 (D.C.2004), and disbarment is within the range of sanctions we impose for misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C.1990) en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's disbarment will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g).