Court Opinion

ID: 9554861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 14:04:08.361251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:18.336913
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. 17-BG-1253

IN RE JAIME TEODORO ZEAS AKA JAMES J. ZEAS
                                                            DDN:016-17
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 491583

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

                                  ORDER
                            (FILED— August 10, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of New York disbarring
respondent from the practice of law; this court’s June 6, 2023, order maintaining
respondent’s suspension pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing
him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the
statement of Disciplinary Counsel recommending reciprocal discipline and
requesting reinstatement be conditioned upon respondent’s reinstatement in New
York and Illinois; and it appearing that respondent has not filed his D.C. Bar R. XI,
§ 14(g) affidavit or a response opposing the condition for reinstatement; and it
further appearing that respondent was convicted of felony child pornography, it is

       ORDERED that Jaime Teodoro Zeas a.k.a. James J. Zeas is hereby disbarred
from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. In addition to the other
requirements for reinstatement, prior to seeking reinstatement, respondent must first
be reinstated to practice law in the states of New York and Illinois. 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). It is
No. 17-BG-1253

      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