Court Opinion

ID: 9928944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 17:02:59.016812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:55.896130
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-0480

IN RE RICHARD L. SLOANE
                                                          DDN: 2023-D046
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 489140

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

                                 ORDER
                           (FILED— February 1, 2024)

       On consideration of Disciplinary Counsel’s consent motion requesting the
court lift the August 16, 2023, stay; and on further consideration of the certified
order from the state of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent with the right
to petition for reinstatement after six months; this court’s June 16, 2023, order
suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show
cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of a six month suspension with a
fitness requirement should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline; respondent’s
response thereto wherein he requests a suspension of not more than six months
without fitness; respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit filed on June 30,
2023; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, it is

       ORDERED that the consent motion to lift the stay is granted and this case
shall proceed. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED that Richard L. Sloane is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months nunc pro tunc to June 30,
2023, with reinstatement conditioned on 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 in favor of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the
No. 23-BG-0480

exceptions is established). Although respondent contends that a lesser sanction
should be imposed, these arguments merely attempt to relitigate the discipline
imposed by the state of Maryland, which is not permitted in reciprocal discipline
cases. See In re Chaganti, 144 A.3d 20, 24 (D.C. 2016) (“[O]ur responsibility in
reciprocal discipline matters is not to sit in appellate review of the foreign
disciplinary proceedings, in order to determine whether they conformed in every
respect to local procedural and substantive law.”); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964,
969 (D.C. 2003) (holding that, in a reciprocal matter, respondent “is not entitled to
relitigate or collaterally attack the findings or judgment of the [original disciplining
court]” and the infirmity of proof exception “is not an invitation to the attorney to
relitigate in the District of Columbia the adverse findings of another court in a
procedurally fair setting”) (citations omitted).

                                   PER CURIAM