judyrecords
search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals Record

IN RE: ROGER M. LINDMARK

Case Information: 06-BG-0009
Short Caption:IN RE: ROGER M. LINDMARKClassification:Bar Governance - Bar - Disciplinary Reciprocal
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:BDN333-05Filed Date:01/10/2006

Opening Event Date:01/10/2006Case Status:Closed
Record Completed:Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:
Argued/Submitted:
Disposition:Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:

Party Information
Appellate RoleParty NameIFPAttorney(s)Arguing AttorneyE-Filer
PetitionerBar CounselN
Wallace E. Shipp NN
PetitionerBoard on Professional ResponsibilityN
Martin R. Baach NN
RespondentRoger M. Lindmark NPro SeN

Events
Event DateStatusDescriptionResult
01/10/2006DISCIPLINARY LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of the State Bar Court of California publicly reproving respondent.
01/27/2006ORDER It appearing that the court has received a certified copy of an order of the State Bar Court of California publicly reproving respondent, it is accordingly, pursuant to Rule XI, Sec 11 (d) of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, ORDERED that Bar Counsel inform the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) of his position regarding reciprocal discipline within 30 days of the date of this order. Within 10 days thereafter, respondent shall show cause before the Board, if cause there be, why identical, greater or lesser discipline should not be imposed in the District of Columbia. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Board 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 Rule XI, Sec 11. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be directed to the Chair of the Board and transmitted to the respondent. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel advise the court if the matter is concluded without the necessity for further court action. (ETW)
02/21/2006LETTER from the Board on Professional Responsibility advising the court that based on the court's order dated January 27, 2006, the Board has stayed its consideration of this matter because the order raises the jurisdictional question of whether the State Bar Court of California is a disciplining court pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 11 (a).
12/21/2006REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ON PROF. RESP. The State Bar Court of California does not have the authority to suspend or disbar. It thus does not meet the definition of a disciplining court under D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 11 (a), and its disciplinary orders cannot be the basis for imposing reciprocal discipline in this jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Board recommends that the court dismiss this reciprocal discipline proceeding.
12/29/2006DISMISSED 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 State Bar Court of California is not a disciplining court under D.C. Bar R. 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)