Court Opinion

ID: 9880681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 14:03:55.001989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:15.680195
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-0984

IN RE EVAN STUART ELAN,

      Respondent.

An Administratively Suspended Member
of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Bar Registration Number: 1015816                        DDN: 2023-D203

BEFORE: Beckwith and AliKhan, Associate Judges, and Ruiz, Senior Judge.

                                 ORDER
                          (FILED— September 28, 2023)

       On consideration of the certified orders from the Commonwealth of Virginia
revoking respondent’s license to practice law; this court’s July 7, 2023, order
maintaining respondent’s suspension and directing him to show cause why the
functionally equivalent discipline of disbarment should not be imposed as reciprocal
discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel requesting that reinstatement
be conditioned upon respondent’s reinstatement in Virginia, to which respondent has
not objected; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C.
Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

        ORDERED that Evan Stuart Elan is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia. 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); see also
In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. 2004) (explaining that the equivalent
sanction in the District for revocation elsewhere is disbarment). In addition to the
other requirements for reinstatement, respondent must be reinstated in Virginia prior
to filing a petition for reinstatement in this jurisdiction. It is
No. 22-BG-0984

      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