Court Opinion

ID: 9386627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 14:02:43.361414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:07.926117
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-0069

IN RE LANE N. BENNETT, ESQUIRE,
                                                            DDN: 2022-61
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 990546

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and Howard, Associate
        Judges.

                                   ORDER
                             (FILED—April 13, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified copy of an order from the state of Louisiana
suspending respondent from the practice of law for three years; this court’s February
6, 2023, order suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and
directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a
three-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed; and the
statement of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests that reinstatement be
conditioned upon respondent’s reinstatement in Louisiana; and it appearing that
respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that Lane N. Bennett is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in the District of Columbia for three years with reinstatement contingent on his
reinstatement to practice law in the state of Louisiana and a showing of fitness. 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)
(explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to
all cases in which the respondent does not participate); see also In re Hoffman, 267
A.3d 1016 (D.C. 2022) (conditioning eligibility to seek reinstatement on
readmission in original disciplining jurisdiction). It is
No. 23-BG-0069

      FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Bennett’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