From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Parker

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Nov 4, 2010
6 A.3d 1284 (D.C. 2010)

Opinion

No. 10-BG-651.

Filed November 4, 2010.

Bar Registration No. 279919, BDN: 455-09.

Before REID, Associate Judge, TERRY and KING, Senior Judges.


ORDER


On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, see In re Parker, 66 A.D.3d 1497, 885 N.Y.S.2d 658 (2009), this court's June 22, 2010, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court's order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g), it is

ORDERED that David E. Parker, Esquire, is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of five years with a fitness requirement. See In re Goldman, 910 A.2d 291 (D.C. 2006) (imposition of a fitness requirement is identical reciprocal discipline for resignations proffered while bar disciplinary matters are pending); and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C. 2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI § 14(g).


Summaries of

In re Parker

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Nov 4, 2010
6 A.3d 1284 (D.C. 2010)
Case details for

In re Parker

Case Details

Full title:In re David E. PARKER, Respondent

Court:District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 4, 2010

Citations

6 A.3d 1284 (D.C. 2010)

Citing Cases

North Ward Radio Co. v. Grigsby Grunow Co.

The appellants' first grievance is that the three petitioners are not qualified as petitioning creditors…

In re Poland Union

In re Minnesota Ins. Underwriters (D.C.) 36 F.2d 371; Gallagher v. Hannigan (C.C.A.) 5 F.2d 171; In re Parker…