Court Opinion

ID: 9928943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 17:02:57.942247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:28.671054
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-0956

IN RE RONALD ANDRE STEWART,
             Respondent.                                DDN: 2023-D087
An Administratively Suspended Member
of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 490341

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

                                  ORDER
                            (FILED— February 1, 2024)

      On consideration of the certified order from the state of Tennessee transferring
respondent to disability inactive status by consent; this court’s November 27, 2023,
order maintaining respondent’s suspension pending final disposition of this
proceeding and directing respondent to show cause why he should not be suspended
based upon a disability pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13; and the statement of
Disciplinary Counsel, in which he requests that respondent’s reinstatement be
conditioned upon his reinstatement in Tennessee; and it appearing that respondent
has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit; and it further
appearing that respondent has not opposed the proposed reinstatement condition, it
is

       ORDERED that Ronald Andre Stewart is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(e).
Reinstatement is subject to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g) and
respondent’s reinstatement in Tennessee. 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) (rebuttable presumption of identical
reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not
participate); In re Stanley, 769 A.2d 141 (D.C. 2001) (disability suspension is the
functional equivalent of inactive status based on disability). It is
No. 23-BG-0956

      FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s
suspension 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