Legal Opinion
In Re Laibstain
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided February 12, 2004No. 02-BG-86PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Per curiam
“What’s in a name?” 1 ' In these two consolidated cases, the Board on Professional Responsibility and Bar Counsel ask us to clarify the requirement embodied in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(2), that reciprocal attorney discipline shall be “identical” to the discipline imposed by the foreign jurisdiction unless certain conditions are met. We hold that the substance of the reciprocal discipline is more important for purposes of § 11(f)(2) than the name attached to it and that for good cause we may impose functionally equivalent discipline under a name different from that used in the foreign…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re ZilberbergDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- In Re ZdravkovichDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- Matter of HauptDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
- In Re AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Sitcov v. District of Columbia BarDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re BogollagamaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
- In Re AngelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In Re SchlemmerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- In re Ann M. OlivariusDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.