Background
The Supreme Court of Maryland placed attorney Dawn Sunshine Veltman on disability inactive status by consent. On March 20, 2026, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended Veltman pending final disposition of reciprocal proceedings and ordered her to show cause why she should not be suspended under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 13.
Veltman did not respond to the show-cause order and did not file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g). Disciplinary Counsel requested that any reinstatement in the District of Columbia be conditioned on her reinstatement in Maryland, and Veltman did not oppose that condition.
The Court’s Holding
The court indefinitely suspended Veltman from practicing law in the District of Columbia under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 13(e). Applying the presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, the court treated Maryland’s disability inactive status as functionally equivalent to an indefinite disability suspension in the District.
Reinstatement is governed by D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 13(g) and is conditioned on Veltman’s reinstatement in Maryland. The one-year waiting period for eligibility for reinstatement in the District will begin only when Veltman files the affidavit required by Rule XI, § 14(g).
Key Takeaways
- An attorney’s disability inactive status in another jurisdiction may support a functionally equivalent indefinite suspension in the District of Columbia.
- The presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline applies when the attorney does not participate in the proceeding.
- Veltman cannot become eligible for D.C. reinstatement until the required affidavit starts the one-year waiting period, and she must also be reinstated in Maryland.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that the District of Columbia generally tracks another jurisdiction’s disability-based restrictions through functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline. It also highlights that failing to file the required post-suspension affidavit can delay the start of the reinstatement waiting period.