August 20, 2009
IN RE: CHANDRA MAHINDA BOGOLLAGAMA, RESPONDENT.
Bar Registration No. 418491
BEFORE: Fisher and Oberly, Associate Judges, and Kern, Senior Judge.
On further consideration of the certified copy of the Circuit Court of Virginia's order revoking respondent's license to practice law, this court's May 18, 2009, order directing respondent to show cause why identical discipline should not be imposed, his responses thereto, and the Statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), it is
ORDERED that Chandra Mahinda Bogollagama is hereby disbarred. Respondent has failed to establish the existence of any exceptions under D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11 (c) and may not re-litigate the factual basis for his discipline in another jurisdiction. In re Fuchs, 905 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2006). Finally, respondent's misappropriation in Virginia would also constitute misconduct in this jurisdiction, see D.C. R. Prof. Cond. 1.15 (a), disbarrment here is the functional equivalent of revocation in Virginia, In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1264 (D.C. 2004), and disbarrment is within the range of sanctions we impose for misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's disbarrment will not begin to run until he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.