Opinion ID: 2330352
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior District of Columbia Proceedings in This Matter

Text: Respondent promptly notified the D.C. Bar Counsel on August 25, 2005 of [his] suspension from the Virginia Bar. See Goldberg Affidavit filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (the Court) on May 22, 2006, which is reproduced in the Appendix to this Report. He also at that time complied with [Bar Counsel's] instructions and promptly notified all clients, judges and adverse parties of [his] suspension, via certified mail, return receipt requested. See Affidavit filed with the Court on May 22, 2006, which also is reproduced in the Appendix to this Report. During the 60-day period of his suspension  from August 24, 2005 to October 24, 2005  Respondent did not practice law in Virginia or the District of Columbia. Id. [1] Bar Counsel, on April 11, 2006  almost eight months after Respondent had notified him of the Virginia suspension, and almost six months after the Virginia suspension period ended  filed with the Court a certified copy of the disciplinary order of the Virginia Board with a proposed order suspending Respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding. The Court, on April 26, 2006, ordered the interim suspension Bar Counsel had requested. Respondent, on May 9, 2006, filed a Motion to Set Aside Suspension, to which he attached documents that he described as, a Show Cause, rule 14(g) affidavit and Goldberg affidavit. Bar Counsel opposed the motion on the ground that Respondent had not yet submitted affidavits sufficiently demonstrating his compliance with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g) or In re Goldberg.  See Opposition of Bar Counsel to Respondent's Motion to Set Aside Suspension at 1-2. Index of Record. at Tab 6. The deficiencies that Bar Counsel specified were as follows: (a) Respondent's proffered Goldberg affidavit is deficient because, inter alia, the affidavit is not properly sworn or notarized, and Respondent did not promptly notify Bar Counsel that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had indefinitely suspended him from practice before the court on August 13, 2003; and (b) Respondent's proffered Section 14(g) affidavit is deficient because, inter alia, the affidavit is not properly sworn or notarized; the Section 14(g) affidavit only addresses the time period of Respondent's suspension in Virginia and does not address whether Respondent has satisfied the Rule's requirements during his current interim suspension in the District of Columbia; and the Section 14(g) affidavit omits at least one jurisdiction where Respondent is admitted to practice, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Opposition of Bar Counsel to Respondent's Motion to Set Aside Suspension at 2. [2] Five days after Bar Counsel's opposition was filed, on May 22, 2006, Respondent filed new affidavits. See Index of Record, at Tab 7. [3] Respondent's May 22 submissions are sworn and, presumably in an effort to deal with Bar Counsel's objection that his previous Section 14(g) affidavit . . . does not address whether Respondent has satisfied the Rule's requirements during his current interim suspension in the District of Columbia, Respondent added to his Section 14(g) affidavit the statement I swear that I am not currently practice [ sic ] law in the District of Columbia during the interim suspension. Based upon the representations in those [May 22 Affidavits], Bar Counsel advised the Court that it does not oppose the lifting of the interim suspension in this case. See Letter dated May 23, 2006 from Bar Counsel to Garland Pinkston, Clerk, District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Index of Record, at Tab 8. [4] The Court, on June 26, 2006, entered the following Order: On consideration of respondent's motion to set aside suspension directed by this Court's order dated April 26, 2006, which temporarily suspended respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(d) . . .; respondent's request for nunc pro tunc treatment; respondent's D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14 affidavit; Bar Counsel's opposition; respondent's amended affidavit, and the letter from Bar Counsel dated May 23, 2006, advising the court that Bar Counsel does not oppose the lifting of respondent's interim suspension, it is ORDERED that respondent's motion to set aside suspension by this Court's order dated April 26, 2006 is granted and the automatic interim suspension under Rule XI, § 11(d) is lifted, without prejudice to the authority of the Board . . . to recommend or the Court to impose, discipline different from or more substantial than that ordered in Virginia, as final discipline in the present proceeding. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's request for nunc pro tunc treatment is denied without prejudice to respondent raising the issue before the Board. . . . [5]