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 Statham

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


January 30, 2003

IN RE MICHAEL V. STATHAM, RESPONDENT. A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 406-01)

Before Wagner, Chief Judge, and Farrell and Reid, Associate Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

Submitted January 14, 2003

The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent Michael V. Statham by consent on October 9, 2001. In the Maryland proceeding, respondent conceded that he could not successfully defend himself against charges that he had intentionally misappropriated funds; specifically, those charges alleged that, in six instances, Statham had deposited into his personal account checks given to his firm as retainers or payment for legal services.

Upon learning of respondent's disbarrment, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility ("the Board"). The Board has recommended that respondent be disbarred as reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board's recommendation. Respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Board and has not filed any opposition to the Board's recommendation.

Disbarrment is the appropriate sanction in nearly all cases of intentional misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). Given the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline *fn1 and our limited scope of review in uncontested discipline cases, *fn2 we adopt the Board's recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Michael V. Statham is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). We again 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.