On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 417-06)
Before RUIZ, GLICKMAN and THOMPSON, Associate Judges.
This reciprocal disciplinary matter stems from the disbarrment of respondent, Andrew M. Steinberg, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on November 6, 2006. That court found that respondent committed serious and protracted acts of neglect and was dishonest with clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals, in violation of a number of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, during his representation of two clients in separate probate and bankruptcy matters.*fn1
Respondent failed to notify Bar Counsel of his disbarrment in Maryland as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (b). Upon discovering it, Bar Counsel filed a certified copy of the Maryland disbarrment order with this court, and we issued an order suspending respondent on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d).*fn2 We also directed the Board on Professional Responsibility to recommend whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether it would proceed de novo. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11. Respondent did not respond to notices or appear to contest the imposition of reciprocal discipline or otherwise participate in this proceeding.*fn3 The Board recommends that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed. Bar Counsel supports that recommendation, and respondent has not filed any exceptions.
There is a rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, see In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992), and we accord heightened deference to such a recommendation in cases such as this where no exceptions are filed, see In re Delaney, 697 A.2d 1212, 1214 (D.C. 1997). We adopt the Board's recommendation. Respondent's misconduct in Marylan constitutes misconduct in the District of Columbia under our identical (or substantially identical) Rules of Professional Conduct, and the sanction of disbarrment is not inconsistent with the discipline this court has imposed for similar ethical violations. See, e.g., In re Foster, 699 A.2d 1110 (D.C. 1997).
ORDERED that Andrew M. Steinberg is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We further note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). For the purposes of reinstatement, the disbarrment shall be deemed to run from the date that respondent files an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). See In re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331 (D.C. 1994).