Background
The Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, placed attorney Marc S. Alpert on disability inactive status by consent. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals temporarily suspended Alpert and directed him to show cause why it should not impose a reciprocal suspension under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 13.
Alpert 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 Alpert first being reinstated in Massachusetts, and Alpert did not oppose that condition.
The Court’s Holding
The court indefinitely suspended Alpert from practicing law in the District of Columbia under Rule XI, § 13(e). Applying the rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, the court treated Massachusetts disability inactive status as functionally equivalent to an indefinite disability suspension in the District.
Reinstatement is governed by Rule XI, § 13(g). The one-year eligibility period will begin only when Alpert files his Rule XI, § 14(g) affidavit, and reinstatement in the District is additionally conditioned on his reinstatement in Massachusetts.
Key Takeaways
- A disability-based inactive status imposed by another jurisdiction may support a functionally equivalent indefinite suspension in the District of Columbia.
- An attorney’s failure to participate in reciprocal proceedings generally leaves the presumption of identical discipline unrebutted.
- The one-year reinstatement-eligibility period does not begin until the attorney files the required Rule XI, § 14(g) affidavit.
- The court may condition District of Columbia reinstatement on reinstatement in the jurisdiction that imposed the original disability status.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces that the District of Columbia ordinarily follows another jurisdiction’s disability-related action through functionally identical reciprocal discipline, particularly when the attorney does not respond. It also highlights the practical importance of filing the required affidavit: delay in filing postpones the start of the minimum reinstatement-eligibility period.