Court Opinion

ID: 9408583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 14:03:51.090317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.910520
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-0005

IN RE CHRISTINA JULIANNE BOSTICK,
                                                           DDN:2022-D206
An Administratively Suspended Member
of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 1006050

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

                                  ORDER
                             (FILED— July 13, 2023)

      On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland transferring
respondent to disability inactive status by consent; this court’s May 3, 2023, order
maintaining respondent’s suspension pending final disposition of this proceeding
and directing respondent to show cause why she 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
her reinstatement in Maryland; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a
response or her 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 Christina Julianne Bostick 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 her reinstatement in 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-0005

      FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s
suspension will not begin to run until such time as she files an affidavit that fully
complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

                                  PER CURIAM