In re Rosenberg ( 2023 )

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. 23-BG-0117
IN RE JAY ARTHUR ROSENBERG,
DDN: 2022-D133
A Retired Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Bar Registration No. 1030354BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Easterly and Howard, Associate
Judges.
ORDER
(FILED—April 20, 2023)
On consideration of the certified order from the state of Virginia revoking
respondent’s authority to practice law after finding that he had been engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law in that state and further barring him from seeking
admission to practice law in the state, to which respondent consented; this court’s
February, 24, 2023, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this
proceeding and directing him to show cause why the functionally equivalent
discipline of disbarment should not be imposed as reciprocal discipline; and the
statement of Disciplinary Counsel including a request for reinstatement to be
conditioned upon respondent’s reinstatement in Virginia; and it appearing that
respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI § 14(g) affidavit; and it
further appearing that respondent has never been licensed in Virginia and is barred
from seeking admission, and, thus, is not eligible for reinstatement, it is
ORDERED that Jay Arthur Rosenberg is hereby disbarred from the practice
of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C.
2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of
identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller,
930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (stating that the rebuttable presumption of identical
reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not
participate); see also In re Laibstain, 841 A.2d 1259, 1263 (D.C. 2004) (explaining
that the equivalent sanction in the District for revocation elsewhere is disbarment).
No. 23-BG-0117
We decline to impose Disciplinary Counsel’s requested reinstatement condition,
because respondent cannot be “reinstated” to a jurisdiction in which he was never
licensed to practice and moreover the certified order from Virginia forever bars him
from seeking admission to practice law in that state. Accordingly, requiring
respondent to be reinstated in Virginia before seeking reinstatement in the District
would effectively cause his disbarment in this jurisdiction to be permanent.
Disciplinary Counsel has not established that such substantially different discipline
is appropriate in this matter. See In re Jacoby, 945 A.2d 1193, 1199-1200 (D.C.
2008) (describing the standard for substantially different discipline). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s
disbarment 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