No More Than Virginia

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals declined to increase a six-month suspension imposed in Virginia, rejecting an invitation by Disciplinary Counsel to order more severe discipline

We decline to impose substantially different discipline in the form of either a longer suspension or fitness requirement, because Disciplinary Counsel failed to establish that the Virginia sanction does not fall within the range of sanctions that respondent would have received in the District or that there are serious concerns about respondent’s ability to act ethically in the future. See In re Jacoby, 945 A.2d 1193, 1199-1200 (D.C. 2008) (describing the two-step No. 24-BG 0796 inquiry for concluding whether the “substantially different discipline” exception applies as determining whether the misconduct would have resulted in the same punishment and if the discipline would be different, whether the difference is “substantial”); id. (defining “same punishment” as a sanction that falls within the range of sanctions that would be imposed in the District)…

(Mike Frisch)