Case Name: IN RE Cyrus A. BISCHOFF. An Inactive Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Bar Registration No. 983732
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 2018-01-25
Citations: 177 A.3d 615
Docket Number: No. 17-BG-1252; 2017 DDN 270
Parties: IN RE Cyrus A. BISCHOFF An Inactive Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Bar Registration No. 983732
Judges: BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 177
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
IN RE Cyrus A. BISCHOFF An Inactive Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Bar Registration No. 983732
No. 17-BG-1252
2017 DDN 270
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
(FILED-January 25, 2018)
BEFORE: Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Washington and Farrell, Senior Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified orders of the Supreme Court of Florida suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Florida for a consecutive period of two years, this court's November 14, 2017, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functionally-equivalent reciprocal discipline of a two-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline and letter that respondent's filed affidavit does not comply with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court's show cause order and that the affidavit filed on January 11, 2018, does not meet the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), it is
ORDERED that Cyrus A. Bischoff is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years with reinstatement contingent on a showing of fitness. 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 suspension 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).