Notice: This order is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 24-BG-0438

IN RE RACHELLE S. YOUNG, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals BDN: 23-ND-005 Bar Registration No. 997809 DDNs: 2021-D020, et al.

and

No. 24-BG-0466

IN RE JOHN P. MAHONEY, Respondent. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals BDN: 23-ND-005 Bar Registration No. 442839 DDNs: 2021-D054, et al.

BEFORE: Beckwith and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Ruiz, Senior Judge.

ORDER (FILED – November 6, 2025)

On consideration of the ad hoc hearing committee’s report and recommendation that, by the parties’ consent, (1) respondents’ probations be revoked for committing new rules violations during their probationary terms, (2) respondents serve their stayed 30-day suspensions, and (3) respondents serve their suspensions consecutively to each other, with Mr. Mahoney’s suspension to begin immediately and Ms. Young’s suspension to begin immediately upon the completion of Mr. Mahoney’s suspension; the Board on Professional Responsibility’s report concurring with this recommendation; and no exceptions to the Board’s report having been filed; it is

ORDERED that respondents’ probations are revoked. It is Nos. 24-BG-0438 & 24-BG-0466

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent John P. Mahoney, Esquire, is suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, which suspension shall begin 10 days after the date of this order; and respondent Rachelle S. Young, Esquire, is suspended from the practice of law for 30 days, which suspension shall begin 40 days after the date of this order. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(f) (providing that an order of suspension will “be effective thirty days after entry unless the Court directs otherwise”). Respondents are reminded of their obligation to file affidavits in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) for purposes of reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c) (providing that “a suspended attorney shall not be eligible for reinstatement until a period of time equal to the period of suspension shall have elapsed following the attorney’s compliance with section 14”). To effectuate the proposal that respondents serve their suspensions consecutively in order to minimize the disruption to their firm, we have delayed the effective date of Mr. Mahoney’s suspension by 10 days to afford him sufficient time to file a fully compliant § 14(g) affidavit, so that he may be eligible for reinstatement before Ms. Young’s suspension begins, while also providing a date certain on which her suspension will begin.

PER CURIAM