Court Opinion

ID: 9554866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 14:04:13.179837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:15.350246
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-0481

IN RE PETER G. ANGELOS,
                                                           DDN:047-23
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 417859

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge.

                                  ORDER
                            (FILED—August 10, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland transferring
respondent to disability inactive status by consent; this court’s June 16, 2023, order
suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing
him to show cause why he should not be suspended based upon a disability pursuant
to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, in which he
requests that respondent’s reinstatement be conditioned upon his reinstatement in
Maryland; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar
R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit; and it further appearing that respondent has not opposed the
proposed reinstatement condition, it is

       ORDERED that Peter G. Angelos is hereby indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(e) with
reinstatement conditioned upon his reinstatement in the state of Maryland. 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) (rebuttable
presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the
respondent does not participate); In re Stanley, 769 A.2d 141 (D.C. 2001) (disability
suspension is the functional equivalent of inactive status based on disability). It is
No. 23-BG-0481

      FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’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