In Re Jonathan K. O'Neill ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Notice: This opinion 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. 19-BG-886
    IN RE JONATHAN K. O’NEILL
    A Suspended Member of the Bar of the
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals                        2019 DDN 144
    Bar Registration No. 497405
    BEFORE: Thompson and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Steadman, Senior Judge.
    ORDER
    (FILED- December 19, 2019)
    On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland
    indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by
    consent wherein a medical fitness requirement was imposed; this court’s October
    10, 2019, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and
    directing him to show cause why this court should not impose the functionally
    equivalent reciprocal discipline of an indefinite suspension with the right to seek
    reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever
    occurs first, and a requirement that prior to reinstatement respondent must be
    deemed fit to practice law by a medical provider acceptable to Disciplinary Counsel;
    and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to
    file either a response to the court’s show cause order or his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g)
    affidavit, it is
    ORDERED that Jonathan K. O’Neill is hereby indefinitely suspended from
    the practice of law in the District of Columbia with the right to seek reinstatement
    after five years or after reinstatement by the state of Maryland, whichever occurs
    first. Further, the right to file a petition for reinstatement is contingent on a medical
    provider, acceptable to Disciplinary Counsel, deeming respondent fit to practice law.
    It is
    No. 19-BG-886
    FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s
    period of suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that
    fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
    PER CURIAM
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-BG-886

Filed Date: 12/19/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2019