Background
Charles T. Tucker, Jr., a suspended member of the District of Columbia Bar (Bar Registration No. 993515), was disciplined by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, which suspended his privilege to practice law in Virginia for six months by consent. Under D.C. rules, a disciplinary action in another jurisdiction triggers a reciprocal discipline proceeding in the District of Columbia.
On February 26, 2026, the D.C. Court of Appeals entered an interim order suspending Tucker pending resolution of the reciprocal discipline matter and directed him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. Tucker did not file a response to the show cause order, nor did he file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g), which governs the obligations of suspended attorneys.
The Court’s Holding
The court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, mirroring the Virginia discipline. Citing In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010), the court reaffirmed that exceptions to the rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline should be rare. Because Tucker neither contested the show cause order nor offered grounds for a departure from the Virginia sanction, the court applied the presumption and imposed the same six-month term.
The court further ordered that Tucker’s suspension period will not begin to run for reinstatement purposes until he files an affidavit fully complying with D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g). This condition effectively tolls the suspension clock until Tucker satisfies the mandatory compliance affidavit requirement.
Key Takeaways
- The D.C. Court of Appeals applies a rebuttable presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline when an attorney has been sanctioned in another jurisdiction, and exceptions to that presumption are rare under In re Sibley.
- An attorney’s failure to respond to a show cause order or to file the required D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g) affidavit leaves no basis to deviate from the out-of-state sanction.
- The six-month suspension period does not begin to run for reinstatement purposes until Tucker files a compliant § 14(g) affidavit, meaning the clock is tolled indefinitely until he acts.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the D.C. Court of Appeals’ consistent application of reciprocal discipline principles: attorneys who are sanctioned elsewhere can expect the same punishment to follow them into the District of Columbia absent compelling, affirmatively presented reasons to the contrary. The decision reinforces that silence in response to a show cause order is not a viable strategy and that procedural compliance—particularly the § 14(g) affidavit—is a prerequisite to starting the reinstatement clock.