Court Opinion

ID: 9405771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 14:03:49.454001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.597764
License: Public Domain

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic
and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of
any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go
to press.

              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-BG-0337

IN RE GRANT GRIFFITH SARBINOFF
                                                            DDN: 2023-D015
An Administratively Suspended Member of the
Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 1005561

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Ruiz,
        Senior Judge.

                                    ORDER
                              (FILED— June 29, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Florida suspending
respondent from the practice of law for three years by consent; this court’s May 3,
2023, order suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing
him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed with his
reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness; and the statement of
Disciplinary Counsel requesting the additional condition that respondent be
reinstated by the state of Florida prior to seeking reinstatement in this jurisdiction;
and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI,
§ 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that Grant Griffith Sarbinoff is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for three years with reinstatement
conditioned on a showing of fitness. Prior to filing a petition for reinstatement
respondent must first be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Florida. See
In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable
presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this
presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (stating
that the rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases
in which the respondent does not participate); see also In re Bennett, 292 A.3d 211

                                          1
No. 23-BG-0337

(D.C. 2022) (conditioning eligibility to seek reinstatement on readmission in original
disciplining jurisdiction). It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Sarbinoff’s
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).

                                  PER CURIAM