Case Name: In re Dale E. DUNCAN, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2015-02-05
Citations: 108 A.3d 1250
Docket Number: No. 14-BG-1223
Parties: In re Dale E. DUNCAN, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and FERRE N and FARRELL, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 108
Pages: 1250–1250

Head Matter:
In re Dale E. DUNCAN, Respondent.
No. 14-BG-1223.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed Feb. 5, 2015.
BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and FERRE N and FARRELL, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order revoking respondent's license to practice law in the state of Virginia, this court's November 10, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline in the form 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), and it further appearing that respondent has twice been suspended for a period of two years as reciprocal discipline but has failed to file his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) in either case, In re Dale E. Duncan, 67 A.3d 1056 (D.C.2013); In re Dale E. Duncan, 21 A.3d 1003 (D.C.2011), it is
ORDERED that Dale E. Duncan is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (re-buttable 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 the period that must pass before one is eligible to file for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.