Court Opinion

ID: 9927042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 00:01:55.352193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.689554
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-0957

In re KELLEY CLEMENTS KELLER
                                                                  DDN:113-23
An Administratively Suspended Member
of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registraion No. 155666

BEFORE: Deahl and Shanker, Associate Judges, and Fisher, Senior Judge.

                                  ORDER
                            (FILED— January 25, 2024)

       On consideration of the certified order from the state of Pennsylvania
suspending respondent from the practice of law for one year and one day by consent;
this court’s November 27, 2023, order suspending respondent pending disposition
of this matter and directing her to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not
be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel requesting that reciprocal
discipline be imposed and that, in addition to a fitness condition, the court impose
the condition that prior to seeking reinstatement in this jurisdiction respondent must
be reinstated in Pennsylvania; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a
response or her D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that Kelley Clements Keller is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in the District of Columbia for one year and one day with
reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness and her reinstatement in
Pennsylvania. 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 to all cases in which the respondent does not participate); see also In re
Hoffman, 267 A.3d 1016 (D.C. 2022) (conditioning eligibility to seek reinstatement
No. 23-BG-0957

on readmission in original disciplining jurisdiction); In re DiGiovanni, 7 A.3d 1027,
1027 (D.C. 2010) (imposing a fitness requirement as identical reciprocal discipline
to one year and one day Pennsylvania suspension). It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Ms. Keller’s
suspension will not begin to run until such time as she files an affidavit that fully
complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

                                  PER CURIAM