Case Information: 06-BG-0253 | |||
Short Caption: | IN RE: EMMANUEL D. AKPAN | Classification: | Bar Governance - Bar - Disciplinary Reciprocal |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | BDN21-05 | Filed Date: | 03/14/2006 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 03/14/2006 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
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 | Emmanuel D. Akpan | N | Pro Se | N |
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
03/14/2006 | DISCIPLINARY LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of a letter of reprimand issued to respondent by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland. | |||
03/29/2006 | ORDER Having received a certified copy of a letter of reprimand issued by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland to respondent, it is accordingly, pursuant ot D.C. Bar Rule XI, Sec 11 (d), ORDERED that the Office of Bar Counsel inform the Board on PRofessional Responsibility of its position regarding reciprocal discipline within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, respondent shall show cause before the Board on Professional Responsibility, if 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 the Board, instead, elects to proceed de novo pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, Sec 11. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order and the letter of reprimand issued by the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, to be directed to the Chair of the Board on Professional Responsibility and transmitted to the respondent. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel advise the Court if the matter is concluded without the necessity of further court action. (ETW) | |||
04/27/2006 | LETTER from the Board advising the court that the Board has stayed it consideration of the matter because it raises the jurisdictional question of whether the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland is a disciplining court pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 11 (a). This issue is sub judice in In re Greenspan, BDN 279-01 and In re Silverman, BDN 504-02, et al. | |||
12/20/2006 | REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ON PROF. RESP. Because the court has held that the Attorney Grievance Commission is not a disciplining court, the Board recommends that the court dismiss this reciprocal discipline proceeding. | |||
12/29/2006 | DISMISSED On consideration of the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, recommending that the court dismiss this proceeding, and it appearing that the Attorney Grievance Commission is not a disciplining court under D.C. Bar Rule XI, Sec 11 (a) and thus its order cannot be the basis for imposing reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction, it is ORDERED that this matter is hereby dismissed. (ETW) |