Court Opinion

ID: 9376227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 15:02:17.45886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:05.294103
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. 22-BG-0807

IN RE ROBERT J. CORRY, JR., ESQUIRE
                                                            DDN:2021-D032
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 467296

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

                                   ORDER
                             (FILED— March 2, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Colorado disbarring
respondent from the practice of law by consent; this court’s October 28, 2022, order
suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing
him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent’s
response; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel including a request for
reinstatement to be conditioned upon respondent’s reinstatement in Colorado; and it
appearing that respondent has not objected to that condition of reinstatement or filed
his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit with this court, it is

       ORDERED that Robert J. Corry, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice of
law in the District of Columbia with reinstatement conditioned upon his
reinstatement in Colorado. 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). Although respondent
argues he was deprived of due process, he waived his right to an evidentiary hearing
in Colorado in his stipulation, the stipulation recognized his “personal or emotional
problems” as mitigating factors, and Colorado has a lawyer assistance program – the
Colorado Lawyer Assistance Program. Respondent identifies no other specific
deficiencies in the Colorado disciplinary process that would weigh against imposing
reciprocal discipline, and his other arguments are an attempt to re-litigate aspects of
No. 22-BG-0807

the proceedings. See In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“[P]ut
simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign
discipline.”); cf. In re Richardson, 692 A.2d 427, 434 (D.C. 1997) (“[I]f Richardson
validly waived an evidentiary hearing in Florida, he is deemed to have waived any
evidentiary hearing on the same charges that would otherwise be required by due
process . . .”). It is

      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