Case Information: 99-BG-1362 | |||
Short Caption: | IN RE: RICHARD E. PAINTER | Classification: | Bar Governance - Bar - Disciplinary |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | BDN366-99 | Filed Date: | 07/25/2000 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 07/25/2000 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | 08/22/2000 | ||
Argued/Submitted: | 01/09/2001 | ||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: |
Party Information | |||||||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | ||||
Petitioner | Bar Counsel | N |
| ||||||
Petitioner | Board on Professional Responsibility | N |
| ||||||
Respondent | Richard E. Painter | N | Pro Se | N |
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
10/25/1999 | DISCIPLINARY LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent. | |||
11/15/1999 | ORDER It appearing that the Court has received a certified copy of an order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent, 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, 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 theBoard 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) | |||
12/07/1999 | DISCIPLINARY LETTER with a certified copy of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland disbarring Respondent. | |||
07/25/2000 | REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ON PROF. RESP. recommends that identical reciprocal discipline be imposed on respondent. Respondent should be disbarred by the Court. Respondent's disbarment should be deemed to run,for reinstatment purposes,from the time he files an affidavit of compliance pusuant to D.C. App. R. XI, Section 14(g). | |||
07/27/2000 | LETTER from Bar Counsel taking no exception to the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility. We not that respondent has failed to file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g). | |||
08/22/2000 | BRIEFS COMPLETED | |||
08/22/2000 | FINAL SCREENING - SUMMARY CALENDAR I | |||
12/05/2000 | CALENDAR NOTICE SENT | |||
01/09/2001 | Filed | ACTION - Argued / Submitted | ||
01/09/2001 | SUBMITTED (ST,SC,GA) | |||
01/25/2001 | DISBARMENT ORDERED that respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g). We direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. (By ST, SC, GA) |