In re Bloch

Full title: In re Scott J. BLOCH, Respondent.

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Date published: Feb 5, 2015

108 A.3d 1247 (D.C. 2015)

Opinion

Nos. 10–BG–1537 14–BG–1347.

2015-02-5

In re Scott J. BLOCH, Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Bar Registration No. 984264, BDN: 173–10.
BEFORE: THOMPSON, Associate Judge, and FERREN and FARRELL, Senior Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a thirty-day suspension followed by a two-year probationary period with conditions, this court's December 29, 2014, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent's response stating that he did not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, the motion of Bar Counsel to consolidate these two cases and dismiss the original disciplinary matter, and respondent's unopposed motion for reinstatement, and it appearing that respondent filed an affidavit that satisfied the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) on December 30, 2014, and an affidavit that satisfiedthe requirements of In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C.1983), on December 15, 2014, it is

ORDERED that Bar Counsel's motion to consolidate these two matters is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Scott J. Block, in no. 14–BG–1347 is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year, stayed in favor of a thirty-day suspension, nunc pro tunc to December 15, 2014, to be followed by a two-year probationary period. 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). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the original disciplinary matter, no. 10–BG–1537, is hereby dismissed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's unopposed motion for reinstatement is hereby granted as he has served his non-stayed thirty-day suspension.