History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Elena Tilly
168 A.3d 690
| D.C. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-BG-332

IN RE ELENA M. TILLY

2017 DDN 43 A Member of the Bar of

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 502996

BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge; Glickman, Associate Judge; and

Nebeker, Senior Judge.

O R D E R (Filed – September 7, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Maryland by consent; this court’s April 14, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent and directing her to show cause why functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s show cause order or file the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Elena M. Tilly is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with reinstatement subject to a fitness requirement and the right to petition for reinstatement after five years or when reinstated in the state of Maryland, whichever occurs first. See In re Maignan , 988 A.2d 493, 495 (D.C. 2010) (setting forth the functionally equivalent discipline for an indefinite suspension without a required minimum period of suspension); see also In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole , 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the “imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic”). For purposes of eligibility to petition for reinstatement, the suspension will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM

Case Details

Case Name: In re Elena Tilly
Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Date Published: Sep 7, 2017
Citation: 168 A.3d 690
Docket Number: 17-BG-332
Court Abbreviation: D.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.