November 24, 2004
IN RE MURRAY L. DEUTCHMAN, RESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Bar Registration No. 161729.
Before Farrell and Washington, Associate Judges, and Newman, Senior Judge.
On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 263-03)
Submitted November 10, 2004
On August 4, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent Murray L. Deutchman based on a joint petition for disbarrment by consent.*fn1 In the petition he acknowledged that he was under investigation for conversion of client funds and that there was evidence sufficient to support the allegations.*fn2
Bar Counsel notified us of this action and we temporarily suspended respondent on October 1, 2003, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") for a determination of whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline, or whether the Board would proceed de novo. The Board now recommends that we disbar respondent as identical reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel has not taken exception to the Board's report and recommendation and respondent has not filed a response.*fn3
Our review in uncontested disciplinary cases is limited and the presumption is in favor of identical reciprocal discipline. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f). Respondent's conduct in Maryland (namely conversion of client funds) entailed intentional misappropriation and dishonesty which, if committed here, would warrant disbarrment.*fn4
The Board thus recommends disbarrment. Since no exception has been taken, we give heightened deference to the Board's recommendation. See D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 9 (g)(2); In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C. 1997). Moreover, as there is substantial support in the record for the Board's findings, we accept them and adopt the recommended sanction since it is not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases.*fn5 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Murray L. Deutchman is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Moreover, since 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).