Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 A.3d 1009

In re Brufsky

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 17, 2013

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 2013-10-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2018

1 state decisions

Relies on In Re Fuller · In Re Sibley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2013-10-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Florida that suspended respondent for a period of 91 days, this court’s August 27, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action *1010of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a 91-day suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court’s order to show cause or his affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is

¶3ORDERED that Allen Brufsky is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 91 days with reinstatement contingent upon a showing of fitness. See, In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C.2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C.2007). It is

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

/77/a3d/1009 · .json · Public domain