In re Edelstein — D.C. Court of Appeals imposed reciprocal disbarment after Maryland disbarment

Case
In re David A. Edelstein
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Judge
Deahl, Associate Judge; Howard, Associate Judge; Thompson, Senior Judge
Date Decided
September 3, 2026
Docket No.
26-BG-0148
Topics
Attorney Discipline; Reciprocal Disbarment; Reinstatement
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

The Supreme Court of Maryland disbarred attorney David A. Edelstein by consent. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals subsequently suspended him pending resolution of reciprocal-discipline proceedings and ordered him to show cause why it should not impose the same discipline in the District.

Disciplinary Counsel requested disbarment and asked the court to condition Edelstein’s reinstatement in the District on his reinstatement in Maryland. Edelstein did not respond to either the show-cause order or Disciplinary Counsel’s statement, and he had not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

The Court’s Holding

The court disbarred Edelstein from practicing law in the District of Columbia. Applying the rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, the court imposed the same sanction ordered in Maryland because Edelstein did not object or establish grounds for an exception.

The court conditioned any reinstatement in the District on Edelstein’s reinstatement in Maryland. It also held that, for reinstatement purposes, the disbarment period will not begin to run until Edelstein files an affidavit fully complying with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

Key Takeaways

  • A foreign jurisdiction’s disciplinary sanction carries a rebuttable presumption of identical discipline in the District of Columbia.
  • An attorney who does not respond to a reciprocal-discipline show-cause order risks imposition of the corresponding sanction without further opposition.
  • Failure to file the required Rule XI, § 14(g) affidavit delays the start of the disbarment period for reinstatement purposes.

Why It Matters

The order underscores the District’s strong preference for matching discipline imposed by another jurisdiction and illustrates the practical consequences of failing to participate in reciprocal proceedings.

It also confirms that compliance with the post-discipline affidavit requirement affects when the disbarment period begins to run, potentially postponing an attorney’s eligibility to seek reinstatement.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top