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 Koczela

District of Columbia Court of Appeals


May 17, 2001

IN RE ALAN E. KOCZELA, RESPONDENT.

Before Steadman, Ruiz, and Glickman, Associate Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

Submitted May 3, 2001

Respondent Alan E. Koczela is a member of the bar of this court and the Virginia State Bar. On August 27, 1999, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked respondent's license to practice law after an expedited hearing at which it determined that respondent committed numerous ethical violations. *fn1

The Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") recommends that we revoke respondent's license as reciprocal discipline, and Bar Counsel takes no exception to that recommendation. For his part, respondent did not participate in the Virginia proceedings, did not file a response before the Board, and has not filed any opposition to the Board's report and recommendation. His failure to do so is treated as a concession that reciprocal discipline is warranted and that the Board's proposed sanction is appropriate. In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1287-88 (D.C. 1995).

Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt the Board's recommendation. See In re Powell, 686 A.2d 247 (D.C. 1996) (imposing reciprocal revocation); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the license of Alan E. Koczela to practice law in the District of Columbia be and hereby is revoked. Respondent can apply for reinstatement pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (d), if and when he is reinstated in Virginia, or after five years, whichever occurs first. As respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), we direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).

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.