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 Ventura

District of Columbia Court of Appeals


June 06, 2002

IN RE GEORGE G. VENTURA, RESPONDENT.
A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

Before Steadman and Farrell, Associate Judges, and Belson, Senior Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

Submitted May 28, 2002

In this consolidated disposition of a criminal conviction matter and a reciprocal discipline proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent in the form of a suspension for ninety days, followed by unsupervised probation for nine months. *fn1 The recommendation stems from respondent's conviction in Ohio state court of four misdemeanor counts charging unauthorized access to computer systems, and from subsequent attorney discipline imposed by the state of Utah - where respondent resided - upon a finding that, among other things, he had revealed confidential information relating to a former client and committed criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. *fn2 As Bar Counsel has noted, the criminal offenses for which respondent was convicted related directly to his practice of law.

Respondent has filed no objection to the Board's report and recommendation. Bar Counsel likewise supports the recommendation. Given our limited scope of review in these circumstances, see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995), we accept the recommendation of the Board. *fn3 It is therefore

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for ninety days, followed by a period of unsupervised probation for nine months. Both are to be nunc pro tunc to August 22, 2001, the date when respondent filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). In addition, respondent shall submit proof of having completed the pro bono work required by the Utah court. See note 1, supra.

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.