On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 045-07)
Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge, and REID and THOMPSON,Associate Judges.
On December 12, 2006, the Supreme Court of California suspended the respondent, Michael W. Coopet, from the practice of law for two years, stayed in favor of probation for three years, with a nine-month actual suspension.*fn1 The Board on Professional Responsibility for the District of Columbia ("the Board") recommends imposing the identical reciprocal discipline. We accept the Board's recommendation.
Mr. Coopet has been a member of the bar of this court since October 2, 1985, and is also a member of the State of California Bar and the State of Minnesota Bar. On September 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of California ordered Mr. Coopet to pay restitution to a former client and imposed an actual suspension of sixty days.*fn2 Upon failing to pay restitution, Mr. Coopet's suspension was extended, which, in turn, triggered a requirement that he file an affidavit showing his compliance with the Court's order pursuant to rule 955 of the California Rules of Court.*fn3 Mr. Coopet failed to satisfy this requirement. On August 15, 2006, stipulations were filed with the State Bar Court Clerk's office in which Mr. Coopet conceded violating California Business and Profession Code §§ 6068 (k) (failure to comply with all conditions attached to a disciplinary probation) and 6103 (wilful disobedience or violation of a court order). Several months later, on December 12, the Court suspended Mr. Coopet. Office of Bar Counsel for the District of Columbia informed this court of Mr. Coopet's suspension on April 12, 2007.*fn4
On May 14, 2007, this court issued an order suspending Mr. Coopet on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d), and directing the Board of Professional Responsibility to recommend whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether it would proceed de novo.
On October 2, 2007, the Board submitted its report, which recommends imposing the identical reciprocal discipline of a two-year suspension, stayed in favor of an actual ninemonth suspension and a three-year probation under the terms imposed by the California Supreme Court. The Board also recommends that the period of suspension run consecutively to the sixty-day period of actual suspension in Coopet I, to correspond to the California discipline. Finally, the Board recommends that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Coopet's suspension should begin on the date he files his § 14 (g) affidavit required under D.C. Bar Rule XI. Neither Mr. Coopet nor Bar counsel filed exceptions to the Board's report.
"This court will accept the Board's findings as long as they are supported by substantial evidence." Coopet I, 904 A.2d at 360; D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (g)(1). "Moreover, [the court] will impose the sanction recommended by the Board unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted." Id. "Because of the rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1985); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f), the lack of any evidence in the record to indicate that reciprocal discipline is inappropriate, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c), and our heightened deference to the Board when its recommendation is unopposed, see id. at § 11 (f); In re Wechsler, 719 A.2d 100 (D.C. 1998), we adopt the Board's recommendation." In re Weiss, 940 A.2d 104 (D.C. 2007). Accordingly, we impose reciprocal discipline, and it is
ORDERED that Michael W. Coopet be suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for the period of two years, stayed in favor of a nine-month suspension followed by three years' probation subject to terms imposed in California. In addition, though Mr. Coopet's suspension is effective immediately, it shall not begin for purposes of reinstatement until he complies with the affidavit requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).