Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Dobson

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


February 9, 1995

IN RE DANIEL L. DOBSON, RESPONDENT, A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

Before Steadman and Ruiz, Associate Judges, and Mack, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM: Before us in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding is a recommendation by the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be suspended for two years, with a requirement of a showing of fitness prior to reinstatement. D.C. Bar R. XI, §§ 11, 16. The Board made this recommendation after determining that the sanction of a six-month suspension with a like requirement of a showing of fitness, imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota on July 12, 1991, was "substantially different discipline" than would be warranted in the District of Columbia for the underlying conduct. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(4); In re Drury, 638 A.2d 60 (D.C. 1994).

Respondent does not contest the recommendation of the Board and indeed has not participated in any manner whatsoever in this proceeding at any level. *fn1 Bar Counsel before us supports the recommendation of the Board. The misconduct of respondent was serious. *fn2 Moreover, he had three times previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings. The issue of sanction was analyzed by the Board in the two-step procedural manner dictated by In re Garner, 576 A.2d 1356 (D.C. 1990). In its recommended sanction, the Board relied upon the case of In re Alexander, 496 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1985), in which a two-year suspension with an automatic requirement of a showing of fitness was imposed. *fn3 See also In re Lenoir, 585 A.2d 771 (D.C. 1991). *fn4

Further, respondent did not notify Bar Counsel of his Minnesota suspension, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(b), *fn5 nor, following his interim suspension by this court on June 4, 1993, did he file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f) and by the interim suspension order itself, which, inter alia, renders him ineligible for retroactive imposition of sanction here. See In re Slosberg, No. 93-BG-1010 (D.C. Dec. 29, 1994). *fn6

In light of all the foregoing, we accept the Board's recommendation and order that respondent Daniel L. Dobson be, and he hereby is, suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years from the date hereof, and shall be reinstated only upon the granting of a petition for reinstatement pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16. *fn7

So ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.