A New Provision In Reciprocal Disbarments

A relatively new development in District of Columbia reciprocal disbarment cases is a Court of Appeals provision requiring that the sanctioned attorney be reinstated in the original disciplining jurisdiction in order to be eligible for D.C. reinstatement.

An order entered today

ORDERED that Mark E. Kellogg is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia and that prior to filing a petition for reinstatement respondent must first be reinstated to practice law in the state of Virginia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established); In re Arif, 275 A.3d 889, 889-90 (D.C. 2022) (“[T]he equivalent sanction for revocation in the District is disbarment[.]”) (citation omitted); see also In re Hoffman, 267 A.3d 1016 (D.C. 2022) (conditioning eligibility to seek reinstatement on readmission in original disciplining jurisdiction).

Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and Howard, Associate Judges signed the order.

The same panel entered a similar order today in a Maryland disbarment.(Mike Frisch)