Court Opinion

ID: 9452831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:53:28.933433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:22.698729
License: Public Domain

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
It appearing that on March 4, 1966, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order suspending William B. Ewers as a member of the bar of that court for an indefinite period, provided however that the said *475William B. Ewers, after the expiration of ninety (90) days, might petition the court for a termination of such suspension ; and
It further appearing that this court on March 21, 1966, suspended William B. Ewers from the practice of law before this court and allowed him forty (40) days therefrom within which to show cause why he should not stand suspended or be disbarred; and
It further appearing thát on May 16, 1966, this court entered an order suspending William B. Ewers as a member of the bar of this court for an indefinite period, without prejudice to a motion for reinstatement after action by the District Court if application for reinstatement was made therein; and
It further appearing that on June 13, 1966, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia being satisfied that Mr. Ewers had in all respects complied with its orders ordered that Mr. Ewers’ suspension be terminated, now on consideration of Mr. Ewers’ motion for reinstatement as a member of the bar of this court, it is
Ordered by the court that the motion for reinstatement to the bar of this court is denied by an equally divided court.