Opinion ID: 1942288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior District of Columbia Proceedings

Text: Bar Counsel brought the California disciplinary order to the attention of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the Court) by a letter dated March 20, 2006 with a proposed order commencing this reciprocal disciplinary proceeding. Respondent, by letter dated March 28, 2006, filed a Response to the Notice of Proposed Order admitting that he resigned from the California Bar with charges pending, but maintaining nonetheless that the resignation should not [a]ffect his membership in the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals because his actions did not constitute any misconduct in the District of Columbia. See Record Index Tab 4. He also urged that [i]t would be unjust and oppressive to be punished again . . . when it would be a great hardship on [him] and the people he is helping with their immigration problems. Id. These people, Respondent asserts, would have no opportunity of obtaining new counsel who could become familiar with their problem fast enough to assist them before they could be deported. Id. Finally, he urges that his conduct in no way poses any threat of harm to [his] clients and that the Court should determine that there is no culpability on [his] part that would require any discipline. Id. Despite Respondent's contentions, the Court entered an interim order on April 4, 2006 that suspended Respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directed Bar Counsel to inform the Board of its position regarding reciprocal discipline and the Board to recommend promptly thereafter . . . whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether the Board, instead, elects to proceed de novo pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11. In re Lebowitz, No. 06-BG-271 (D.C. Apr.4, 2006). A month later, on May 3, 2006, the Court directly addressed Respondent's earlier pleading in response to Bar Counsel's proposed order and entered another order, which construed the earlier pleading as a motion to vacate the interim order of suspension and denied that motion. In re Lebowitz, No. 06-BG-271 (D.C. May 4, 2006).