Summary
conditioning eligibility to seek reinstatement on readmission in original disciplining jurisdiction
Summary of this case from In re KellerOpinion
No. 21-BG-703
01-27-2022
In re NATHAN v. HOFFMAN An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 420588
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On consideration of the certified order from the state of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of four years, stayed in favor of a three-year suspension with reinstatement contingent on satisfying the conditions imposed and establishing fitness; this court's October 29, 2021, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests this court impose reciprocal discipline with an additional condition that reinstatement also be conditioned on respondent first being reinstated by the state of California; and it appearing that respondent has not filed any responses or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that Nathan V. Hoffman is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of four years, stayed in favor of a three-year suspension with reinstatement contingent on his reinstatement to practice law by the state of California and a showing of fitness. See 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, including those involving disbarment). 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).