Court Opinion

ID: 9388238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 14:02:59.627508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.013883
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-0067

IN RE JAMES R. LEONE,
                                                     DDN: 2022-D125
An Administratively Suspended Member of
the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 955468

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

                                    ORDER
                              (FILED—April 20, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Florida permanently
revoking respondent’s license to practice law by consent; this court’s February, 6,
2023, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and
directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of disbarment
should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary
Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R.
XI § 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that James R. Leone is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia. 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 Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. 2004) (explaining that the equivalent
sanction for revocation in the District is disbarment). It is
No. 23-BG-0067

      FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s
disbarment 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