Court Opinion

ID: 9390246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 14:03:48.20918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.223291
License: Public Domain

Error! Main Document Only.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-0116

IN RE MARK E. KELLOGG
                                                            DDN:2022-D126
A Retired Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 340786

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and Howard, Associate
        Judges.

                                    ORDER
                              (FILED—April 27, 2023)

      On consideration of the certified order from the state of Virginia revoking
respondent’s law license by consent; this court’s February 24, 2023, order
suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show
cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of
Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests that reinstatement be conditioned upon
respondent’s reinstatement in Virginia; and it appearing that respondent has not filed
a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

       ORDERED that Mark E. Kellogg is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia and that prior to filing a petition for reinstatement
respondent must first be reinstated to practice law in the state of Virginia. 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
unless one of the exceptions is established); In re Arif, 275 A.3d 889, 889-90 (D.C.
2022) (“[T]he equivalent sanction for revocation in the District is disbarment[.]”)
(citation omitted); see also In re Hoffman, 267 A.3d 1016 (D.C. 2022) (conditioning
eligibility to seek reinstatement on readmission in original disciplining jurisdiction).
It is
No. 23-BG-0116

      FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Kellogg’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