Case Name: IN RE Jude EZEALA. 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: 2017-12-07
Citations: 174 A.3d 257
Docket Number: No. 17-BG-771
Parties: IN RE Jude EZEALA An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Judges: BEFORE: Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
IN RE Jude EZEALA An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 17-BG-771
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(FILED-December 7, 2017)
Bar Registration No. 988728
BEFORE: Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

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 September 18, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing him to show cause why functionally equivalent 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 this court's show cause order but did file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit on November 15,2017, it is
ORDERED that Jude Ezeala is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia nunc pro tunc to November 15, 2017, 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").