June 13, 1991
IN THE MATTER OF: ELIOT LESLIE LIEBERMAN, RESPONDENT. A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility
Steadman and Schwelb, Associate Judges, and Reilly, Senior Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
After conceding that he could not successfully defend himself against charges of misappropriating client funds, respondent consented to disbarrment from the practice of law by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Upon being notified of the outcome of the Maryland proceedings, this court suspended respondent and ordered him to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed in this jurisdiction. Respondent, through counsel, stated that he was unable to show cause. Accordingly, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that this court disbar respondent.
Reciprocal discipline is mandatory unless an attorney demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, a procedural defect or a disciplinary disparity between the respective jurisdictions. D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11 (c). Respondent has declined to make such a showing and the Board asserts that there are no procedural or substantive infirmities that would preclude imposition of reciprocal discipline. In this jurisdiction, there is a presumption that misappropriation of client funds requires disbarment. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). Accordingly, respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law and his name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice before this court.
© 1997 VersusLaw Inc.