On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 111-02)
Before Terry, Schwelb, and Glickman, Associate Judges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Submitted September 18, 2003
Respondent was administratively suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia on December 31, 2001, for non-payment of bar dues. On April 8, 2002, he was disbarred by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Dunietz, 368 Md. 419, 795 A.2d 706 (2002). After learning of that disbarrment, Bar Counsel filed a certified copy of the Maryland order with this court. On June 4, 2002, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law in the District of Columbia and referred the matter to the Board of Professional Responsibility ("the Board") to determine whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed. The Board has now recommended that respondent be disbarred as reciprocal discipline. *fn1 Bar Counsel has advised us that she takes no exception to the Board's recommendation. Respondent has not filed in this court any opposition to the Board's recommendation, or any other pleading. *fn2
There is a rebuttable presumption that the sanction imposed by this court in a reciprocal discipline case will be identical to that imposed by the original disciplining court. See In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992). This presumption can be rebutted only if the respondent demonstrates, or the face of the record reveals, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of one of the five conditions enumerated in D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11 (c). None of those five conditions is applicable in this case.
Respondent's failure in this case to file any exception to the Board's report and recommendation is treated as a concession that reciprocal disbarrment is warranted. E.g., In re Childress, 811 A.2d 805 (D.C. 2002); In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1995); see also D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11 (f). Additionally, the record discloses no reason for us to conclude that the imposition of identical discipline would be inappropriate or unwarranted. Most, and probably all, of the disciplinary violations outlined in the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion w ould also constitute misconduct under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. *fn3 Further, disbarrment is within the range of appropriate sanctions in such a case. See, e.g., In re Foster, 699 A.2d 1110 (D.C. 1997).
It is therefore ORDERED that Jerry S. Dunietz is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14 (f). We direct respondent's attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g), and their effect on his ...