Case Name: IN RE Russell W. WARNOCK, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Registration No. 418808
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2017-11-02
Citations: 172 A.3d 392
Docket Number: No. 17-BG-571; DDN: 269-16
Parties: IN RE Russell W. WARNOCK, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Registration No. 418808
Judges: BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
IN RE Russell W. WARNOCK, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bar Registration No. 418808
No. 17-BG-571
DDN: 269-16
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(FILED November 2, 2017)
BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Colorado for three years with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness; this court's June 9, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to the show cause order or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that Russell W. Wamock is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for three years with reinstatement subject to a fitness requirement. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) will prevail except in "rare" cases); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the "imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic"). For the purpose of eligibility to petition for reinstatement, the suspension will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.