Opinion
No. 13–BG–889.
08-27-2015
In re Grason John–Allen ECKEL, Respondent.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Eckel, 443 Md. 75, 115 A.3d 142 (2015), this court's July 1, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionally equivalent discipline of an indefinite suspension should not be imposed with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness and with the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by the state of Maryland, respondent's notice that he does not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent filed an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on October 2, 2013, it is
ORDERED that Grason John–Allen Eckel is hereby indefinitely suspended with reinstatement conditioned on a showing of fitness, nunc pro tunc to October 2, 2013. Respondent may file for reinstatement after five years or after he is reinstated to practice law in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate).