District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2003

In re Maxwell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Decided January 23, 2003 · Newman, Schwelb, Terry

815 A.2d 362; 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 13; 2003 WL 151853 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This matter is back before the court following our rejection of the sanction initially recommended by the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”). In In re Maxwell, 798 A.2d 525 (D.C. 2002), we remanded this case to the Board, directing it to determine whether to recommend identical reciprocal discipline or to conduct further proceedings. The Board now recommends that we impose functionally identical reciprocal discipline, namely, a public censure.1

*363Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent has offered any objection to the Board’s report and recommendation. Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt that recommendation. See In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992); D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(f). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that James S. Maxwell be, and hereby is, publicly censured.

. Respondent consented to a public reprimand by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The functionally equivalent sanction in the District of Columbia is a public censure. See In re Greenberg, 762 A.2d 42 (D.C. 2000).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.