Case Name: IN RE Scott B. GILLY, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 442356)
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2017-11-02
Citations: 172 A.3d 394
Docket Number: No. 17-BG-568; DDN: 355-16
Parties: IN RE Scott B. GILLY, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 442356)
Judges: BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
IN RE Scott B. GILLY, Respondent. A Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (Bar Registration No. 442356)
No. 17-BG-568
DDN: 355-16
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(FILED November 2, 2017)
BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order'of the United States' District Court for the Southern District of New York suspending respondent from the practice of law with leave to petition for reinstatement after one year; this court's June 9, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should riot be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and respondent's response to the show cause order in which he does not oppose identical reciprocal discipline but requests the reciprocal suspension run nunc pro tunc from September" 12, 2016, when he was suspended by the District Court; and it appearing that respondent filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit in this case on July 7, 2017, but has not practiced law in the District of Columbia since the filing of the affidavit for his prior suspension in this jurisdiction, it is
ORDERED that Scott B. Gilly is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year nunc pro tunc to September 12, 2016, with reinstatement subject to a fitness requirement. See 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").