Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JAGJOT S. KHANDPUR, BDN2011–D304 Respondent. Bar Registration
ORDER
BEFORE: Oberly, Associate Judge, Terry and Steadman, Senior Judges.
On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, but with the ability to reapply for reinstatement sixty days after the suspension, see Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Khandpur, 25 A.3d 165
Md., 2011
, this court's November 22, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a sixty day suspension with fitness should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court's order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14
g
, it is
ORDERED that Jagjot S. Khandpur is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of sixty-days with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198
D.C.2007
, and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165
D.C.2006
rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate
. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent's suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14
g
.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 11–BG–1432
Decided: February 02, 2012
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)