IN RE: Kevin ROY (2017)

ORDER

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 suspending respondent and directing him 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 Kevin Roy 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