In re Richard H. Laibstain and In re Joel Steinberg

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that reciprocal attorney discipline under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f)(2), may be functionally equivalent rather than identical in name to the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction. Because Virginia had revoked the respondents’ licenses for misconduct including intentional misappropriation of client funds, the court ordered both Richard H. Laibstain and Joel Steinberg disbarred in the District of Columbia.

Holdings

1. Under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f)(2), the substance and practical effect of reciprocal discipline are more important than the sanction's name; for good cause, the court may impose functionally equivalent discipline under a different name.
2. After the 2000 amendments to Virginia's disciplinary rules, Virginia revocation is functionally equivalent to District of Columbia disbarment because both are the most serious sanction, prohibit practice for at least five years, and impose comparable reinstatement requirements.
3. Laibstain and Steinberg were each disbarred from practicing law in the District of Columbia.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f)(2), requires the District of Columbia to use the same name as the foreign jurisdiction for reciprocal discipline, or instead permits functionally equivalent discipline under a different label.
2. Whether disbarment is functionally equivalent to Virginia's post-2000 revocation sanction and therefore permissible as reciprocal discipline for these respondents.
3. What reciprocal discipline should be imposed on Laibstain and Steinberg.

Disposition

other