Case Name: IN RE David E. FURRER A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Reg. No. 446343
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2018-05-24
Citations: 184 A.3d 845
Docket Number: No. 18–BG–215
Parties: IN RE David E. FURRER
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 184
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
IN RE David E. FURRER
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Reg. No. 446343
No. 18-BG-215
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed-May 24, 2018
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent; this court's March 9, 2018, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally-equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension with a fitness requirement, with the right to file for reinstatement after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first, should not be imposed; the motion of Disciplinary Counsel for leave to file his lodged late response; and it appearing that respondent failed to file either a response to the court's show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that the motion of Disciplinary Counsel is granted and the lodged response is filed. It is
ORDERED that David E. Furrer is hereby indefinitely suspended with a fitness requirement. He may file for reinstatement after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. 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). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit.