IN RE: BRIDGETTE HARRIS-SMITH

Case Information: 99-BG-1287
Short Caption:	IN RE: BRIDGETTE HARRIS-SMITH	Classification:	Bar Governance - Bar - Disciplinary
Lead:	99-BG-1074	Consolidated:	99-BG-1287
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:	BDN341-98	Filed Date:	10/01/1999
Opening Event Date:	10/01/1999	Case Status:	Closed
Record Completed:		Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:	12/13/2000
Argued/Submitted:	04/24/2001
Disposition:		Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:

Events
Event Date	Status	Description	Result
10/01/1999		DISCIPLINARY LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of an order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending the above-named attorney.
10/01/1999		LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a new address for respondent: 7603 Georgia Avenue, N.W., Suite 303, Washington, D,C. 20012
10/07/1999		ORDER It appearing that the court has received a certified copy of an order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent for 30 days, it is accordingly, pursuant to Rule XI, Sec 11 (d) of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel inform the Board on Professional Responsibility of his position regarding reciprocal discipline within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, respondent shall show cause before the Board on Professional Responsibility, if cause there be, within 10 days why identical, greater or lesser discipline should not be imposed in the District of Columbia. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Board on Professional Responsibility is directed to recommend promptly thereafter to this court whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether the Board instead elects to proceed de novo pursuant to Rule XI, Sec 11. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's attention is drawn to the requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, Sec 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of Sec 16 (c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to compliance with Sec 14, including the filing of the required affidavit. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order and the order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland to be directed to the Chair of the Board on Professional Responsibility and transmitted to respondent. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel advise the court if the matter is concluded without the necessity of further court action. (AMW)
11/17/2000		REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ON PROF. RESP. that respondent be indefinitely suspended in the District of Columbia with the right to apply for reinstatement under D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 16 (d), after she is reinstated in the Bankruptcy Court or after five years, whichever occurs first. If reinstatement is sought here prior to reinstatement in the Bankruptcy Court, the period of suspension should be deemed to commence when respondent files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g).
11/21/2000		LETTER from Bar Counsel taking no exception to the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility. Bar Counsel note that respondent has failed to file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g).
11/27/2000		ORDER It is ORDERED, sua sponte, that the above entitled appeals are consolidated for all purposes. (GP)
12/13/2000		BRIEFS COMPLETED
12/18/2000		FINAL SCREENING - SUMMARY CALENDAR I
03/02/2001		CALENDAR NOTICE SENT
04/24/2001	Filed	ACTION - Argued / Submitted
04/24/2001		SUBMITTED (ST,PRY,BE)
05/10/2001		SUSPENSION ORDERED that respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. She may apply for reinstatement under D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 16 (d) after she is reinstated by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland or after five years, whichever occurs first. Although respondent has been suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia since August 25, 1999, she has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g). We direct respondent's attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on her eligibility for reinstatement. (By ST, PY, BE)