Opinion ID: 1967474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A. Richard H. Laibstain

Text: Respondent Richard H. Laibstain was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1984. Laibstain also was a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Virginia until the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked his license effective November 16, 2001, after he admitted a number of ethical violations. These violations included Laibstain's repeated, intentional misappropriation of client funds. Bar Counsel reported the license revocation in Virginia to this court. We temporarily suspended Laibstain from the practice of law pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d), issued him a show cause order, and directed the Board on Professional Responsibility to recommend whether to impose identical, greater or lesser reciprocal discipline or to proceed de novo. Laibstain did not respond to the show cause order or participate in the Board proceeding that ensued. [2] Bar Counsel asked the Board to impose disbarment as functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline. The Board issued its report on October 31, 2002. Deeming identical reciprocal discipline mandated by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(2), and opinions of this court, the Board recommended that Laibstain's license to practice law in the District of Columbia be revoked, subject to the right to apply for reinstatement in five years. This recommendation was a qualified one, however. The Board stated that if it were writing on a blank slate, [it] would prefer to recommend the `functionally equivalent' District of Columbia sanction [of disbarment], thereby avoiding unnecessary expansion of the kinds of different sanctions imposed in our reciprocal discipline cases. Excepting to the Board's recommendation, Bar Counsel asks us to disbar Laibstain.