Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 A.3d 1086

In re Broida

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 2015

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2015-04-30

Relies on In Re Fuller · In Re Sibley · Attorney Grievance Commission v. Broida

Decided 2015-04-30

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Com’n of Maryland v. Broida, 441 Md. 1, 104 A.3d 898 (2014), this court’s February 10, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

¶3ORDERED that Charles J. Broida is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007) (re-buttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

¶4FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of 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).

/113/a3d/1086 · .json · Public domain