Court Opinion

ID: 9390247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 14:03:48.929685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.222340
License: Public Domain

Error! Main Document Only.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-0115

IN RE MARK L. HESSEL
                                                           DDN: 2022-D204
A Suspended Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 333344

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

                                   ORDER
                             (FILED—April 27, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland disbarring
respondent from the practice of law by consent; this court’s February 24, 2023, order
suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show
cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of
Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests that reinstatement be conditioned upon
respondent’s reinstatement in Maryland; and it appearing that respondent has not
filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that Mark L. Hessel is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia and that prior to filing a petition for reinstatement
respondent must first be reinstated to practice law 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)
(explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies
unless one of the exceptions is established); 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-0115

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