Case Name: IN RE Gary M. ANDERSON. An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 170 A.3d 181
Docket Number: No. 17-BG-427
Parties: IN RE Gary M. ANDERSON An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Judges: BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Steadman and Reid, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 170
Pages: 181–181

Head Matter:
IN RE Gary M. ANDERSON An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 17-BG-427
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Filed September 28, 2017
Bar Reg. No. 261644
BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Steadman and Reid, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Maryland by consent; this court's June 9, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing him to show cause why functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent did not filé a response to this court's show cause order or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that Gary M. Anderson is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with reinstatement subject to a fitness requirement and the right to petition for reinstatement after five years or when reinstated in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Maignan, 988 A.2d 493, 495 (D.C. 2010) (setting forth the functionally equivalent discipline for an indefinite suspension without a required minimum period of suspension); see also 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 purposes 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.