Case Name: In re Ronald M. LEVIN, Respondent
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2014-06-19
Citations: 93 A.3d 243
Docket Number: No. 14-BG-321
Parties: In re Ronald M. LEVIN, Respondent.
Judges: Before EASTERLY, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER and KING, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 93
Pages: 243–243

Head Matter:
In re Ronald M. LEVIN, Respondent.
No. 14-BG-321.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed June 19, 2014.
Bar Registration No. 441575, BDN: 77-14.
Before EASTERLY, Associate Judge, and NEBEKER and KING, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
AMENDED ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Levin, 437 Md. 419, 86 A.3d 1272 (2014), this court's April 3, 2014, order directing respondent to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, Bar Counsel's motion to stay proceedings until the Court of Appeals of Maryland issues a final opinion, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline wherein he also requests that his prior motion to stay be withdrawn because a final opinion issued on May 16, 2014, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Bar Counsel's motion to stay is hereby withdrawn as moot. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald M. Levin 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) (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 period of disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).