Case Name: IN RE: Alexander M. CHANTHUNYA, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2017-01-26
Citations: 152 A.3d 148
Docket Number: No. 16-BG-1093
Parties: IN RE: Alexander M. CHANTHUNYA, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Pryor and Farrell, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 152
Pages: 148–148

Head Matter:
IN RE: Alexander M. CHANTHUNYA, Respondent.
No. 16-BG-1093
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(Filed January 26, 2017)
Bar Registration No. 495558, DDN: 115-16
BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Pryor and Farrell, 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 sixty days, this court's November 15, 2016, order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why the functionally-equivalent reciprocal discipline of a sixty-day suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, respondent's D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit filed on December 21, 2016, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court's order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that Alexander M. Chan-thunya is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of sixty days, nunc pro tunc to December 21, 2016. Reinstatement is 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) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).