02-BG-0070: Case View

Case Information: 02-BG-0070
Short Caption:	IN RE: JOEL STEINBERG	Classification:	Bar Governance - Bar - Disciplinary
Lead:	02-BG-0070	Consolidated:	02-BG-0086
Superior Court or Agency Case Number:	2002-BDN-000009	Filed Date:	01/29/2002

Opening Event Date:	01/29/2002	Case Status:	Closed
Record Completed:		Post-Decision Matter Pending:
Briefs Completed:	07/01/2003
Argued/Submitted:	01/20/2004
Disposition:		Next Scheduled Action:
Mandate Issued:

Party Information

Appellate Role

Party Name

IFP

Attorney(s)

Arguing Attorney

E-Filer

Petitioner

Disciplinary Counsel

Joyce E. Peters	N	N
John T. Rooney	Y	N

Petitioner

Board on Professional Responsibility

Elizabeth J. Branda	Y	N
Timothy J. Bloomfield	N	N

Respondent

Joel Steinberg

Pro Se

Events
Event Date	Status	Description	Result	PDF
01/29/2002		DISCIPLINARY LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoking by consent the license of respondent.
02/13/2002		ORDER It appearing that the Court has received a certified copy of an order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board, revoking respondent's license by consent, it is, accordingly, pursuant to Rule XI, Sec 11 (d) of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding, effective on the date of entry of this order, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel inform the Board on Professional Responsibility of her position regarding reciprocal discipline within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, respondent shall show cause before the Baord on Professional Responsibility, if cause there be, within 10 days why identical, greater or lesser discipline should not be imposed in the District of Columbia. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Board on Professional Responsibility is directed to recommend promptly thereafter to this court whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether the Board instead elects to proceed de novo pursuant to Rule XI, Sec 11. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's attention is drawn to the requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, Sec 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the provisions of Sec 16 (c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to compliance with Sec 14, including the filing of the required affidait. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order and the order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board to be directed to theChair of the Board on Professional Responsibility and transmitted to respondent. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel advise the Court if the matter is concluded without the necessity of further court action. (AMW)
05/28/2002		LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily suspending respondent.
08/15/2002		LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel with a certified copy of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia disbarring respondent.
12/30/2002		REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD ON PROF. RESP. that respondent's licence to practice law in the District of Columbia be revoked with the right to apply for reinstatement in five years. For reinstatement purposes, this sanction should be deemed to commence only when respondent files the affidavit required by Rule XI, Sec 14 (g).
01/24/2003		LETTER from the Office of Bar Counsel taking exception to the Board's report and recommendation filed December 30, 2002. Bar Counsel notes that this exception raises the same legal issue as that in In re Laibstain, 02-BG-86, a matter presently pending before the Court on Bar Counsel's exception. The Laibstain matter brief is due to be filed with the court by February 12, 2003. Bar Counsel suggests that in the interest of judicial economy that either this matter be deferred until after the court rules in the Laibstain matter of that the matters be consolidated for briefing.
01/30/2003		BD. ON PROF. RESP. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AND TO CONSOLIDATE APPEALS 02-BG-70 AND 02-BG-86.
02/03/2003		LETTER from the Board on Professional Responsibility that the report and recommendation mailed to respondent at his secondary address listed with the bar was returned by the Postal Service on January 13, 2003, marked Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward, Return to Sender. Previous correspondence to respondent's primary address was also returned.
02/19/2003		ORDER On consideration of the motion of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) for leave to file brief, and consolidate appeals nos. 02-BG-70 and 02-BG-86, and there appearing to be no opposition thereto, and it appearing that Bar Counsel has filed exceptions in both cases, and it further appearing that Bar Counsel's brief was due to be filed in case no. 02-BG-86 on February 12, 2003, it is ORDERED that the Board's motion to consolidate case nos. 02-BG-70 and 02-BG-86 is granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Board's motion to file brief is granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the briefing schedule established in case no. 02-BG-86 pursuant to this court's order of January 3, 2003, is revised to the extent that the consolidated brief of Bar Counsel in case nos. 02-BG-70 and 02-BG-86, shall be filed within 40 days from the date of this order, the brief of the Board on Professional Responsibility shall be filed within 30 days thereafter, and respondent may file a brief 30 days from the date of the Board on Professional Responsibility files its brief. (GP)
02/20/2003		error
03/31/2003		PETITIONER'S BRIEF (Bar Counsel)
04/30/2003		PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF (BPR)
05/13/2003		RECEIVED letter from the Board on Professional Responsibility that they were unable to deliver a copy of the April 30, 2003, motion to extend time to file brief, to Mr. Laibstain at the addresses listed with the Board.
05/14/2003		ORDER On consideration of the motion of the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) for an extension of time in which to file brief, and the letter dated May 9, 2003, from the Board advising the court that the copies of the motion addressed to Richard H. Laibstain were returned not deliverable as addressed unable to forward, it is ORDERED that the Board's motion is granted and the Board's brief shall be filed on or before May 23, 2003. (GP)
05/23/2003		PETITIONER'S BRIEF (BPR)
07/01/2003		BRIEFS COMPLETED
07/01/2003		FINAL SCREENING - REGULAR CALENDAR
10/07/2003		LETTER TO COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING (Dec-Mar)
10/07/2003		LETTER TO COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING (Dec-Mar)
10/14/2003		LETTER FROM COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING (Bar Counsel)
10/14/2003		LETTER FROM COUNSEL/PARTY RE FUTURE CALENDARING Elizabeth J. Branda, Esquire (BPR)
11/03/2003		LETTER from the BPR to Mr. Laibstain re: October 14, 2003 letter mailed to 480 Westover Mews, Norfolk, VA 23507, which was returned from the Post Office marked undeliverable as addressed, forwarding order expired. Remailed to P.O. Box 1722, Glen Allen, VA 23060.
12/03/2003		CALENDAR NOTICE SENT
01/15/2004		SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD of the Board on Professional Responsibility and Index.
01/20/2004	Filed	ACTION - Argued / Submitted
01/20/2004		CERTIFICATE PER RULE 28 (Bar Counsel)
01/20/2004		ARGUED (SC,GL,KN) Elizabeth J. Branda, Esq., for petitioner. John T. Rooney, Esq., for petitioner.
02/12/2004		DISBARMENT Accordingly, we ORDER that respondents Richard H. Laibstain and Joel Steinberg each be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective in each case from the date on which the respondent files the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, Sec 14 (g). We direct respondents' attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, Secs 14 (g) and (h) and 16, and their effect on respondents' eligibility for reinstatement. (SC, GL, KN)