Summary
imposing disbarment as the functional equivalent of a disciplinary resignation
Summary of this case from In re ChoiOpinion
No. 21-BG-198
06-17-2021
IN RE Barry N. FRANK An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 371252
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order from the state of New York accepting respondent's resignation from the practice of law while he was under disciplinary investigation; this court's April 15, 2021, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why the functional reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that Barry N. Frank is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; 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). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's disbarment 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).