Court Opinion

ID: 9746928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:45:46.097164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:18.361700
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
The Board on Professional Responsibility, which has specialized expertise in these matters, has recommended that we sus*727pend Robertson for thirty days. Bar Counsel now agrees.
D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 9(g) requires this court to “adopt the recommended disposition of the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” In my opinion, the Board’s recommended disposition is reasonably consistent with our precedents.1 I would therefore adopt it.
I think we should also take into consideration the fact that Robertson has already been temporarily suspended since April of last year. Under the majority’s disposition, Robertson receives no credit for “time served,” but his suspension is nevertheless for a much longer period than the thirty days recommended by the Board. I do believe, however, that the shorter suspension which the Board has suggested and which I would impose should begin after Robertson has filed an affidavit in conformity with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(f).
Accordingly, although I agree with the majority that no de novo hearing is necessary, I respectfully dissent from the order suspending Robertson prospectively for six months.

. Although this is in a sense a reciprocal discipline case, I do not think that the suspension of a lawyer for six months from practicing law in a jurisdiction in which he is a member of the bar is "identical discipline,” see D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f), to an order precluding him from applying for admission to a bar of which he is not a member. Robertson’s livelihood is far more severely affected by our suspension of him than by the action of the United States District Court.