Opinion ID: 2368128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reciprocal Discipline in the District of Columbia

Text: This court imposes reciprocal discipline in accordance with the provisions of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11. Rule XI, section 11 continues to `create[] a rebuttable presumption' that, when a member of our Bar has been disbarred, suspended, or placed on probation by another disciplining court, the discipline will be the same in the District of Columbia as it was in the original disciplining jurisdiction. In re Gonzalez, 967 A.2d 658, 660 (D.C.2009) (explaining that this presumption continues to apply following amendments to the Rule that became effective in August 2008) (citation omitted). Specifically, Rule XI, section 11 provides that this court shall impose identical discipline unless the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence, or the Court finds on the face of the record, that one or more of the following grounds exists: (1) the procedure elsewhere was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or (2) there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistently with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or (3) the imposition of the same discipline by the Court would result in grave injustice; or (4) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia; or (5) the misconduct elsewhere does not constitute misconduct in the District of Columbia. Rule XI, § 11(c)(1)-(5). Relying on Rule XI, section 11(c)(4), the Board in this case concluded that disbarment was not within the range of sanctions for the particular misconduct committed by Respondent and that the difference between the Maryland disbarment and the sanction that would have been imposed if this case had been brought as an original matter in the District of Columbia is substantial. [3] Report at 7 (italics omitted). The Board arrived at its recommended sanction of an eighteen-month suspension after considering the sanctions that this court has imposed for conduct similar to respondent's. The Board characterized the recommended eighteen-month suspension as a substantial suspension warranted by respondent's long course of dishonesty about his professional activities, coupled with his fabrication of documents, including official court-stamps. Report at 16. Respondent urges us to adopt the Board's recommendation. Before the Board, Bar Counsel recommended the identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment, but now takes the position that, while disbarment or a lengthier period of suspension is warranted, the court should impose a suspension of at least eighteen months. In addition, Bar Counsel urges us to impose a fitness requirement, i.e., a requirement that respondent demonstrate his fitness to practice law before he may be reinstated in this jurisdiction. [4]