In re Rosier ( 2024 )

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. 24-BG-0721
In re MICHAEL S. ROSIER,
Respondent.
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals DDN: 2023-D182
Bar Registration No. 373449BEFORE: Beckwith and Howard, Associate Judges, and Thompson, Senior Judge.
ORDER
(FILED— November 21, 2024)
On consideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland suspending
respondent from the practice of law for 30 days, stayed in favor of six months’
probation with conditions, by consent; this court’s October 9, 2024, order directing
him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent’s
response in which he requests that reciprocal discipline be imposed nunc pro tunc to
October 20, 2023, the date of the Maryland discipline; and the statement of
Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing respondent did not notify Disciplinary
Counsel of the Maryland discipline, it is
ORDERED that Michael S. Rosier is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in the District of Columbia for 30 days, stayed in favor of a six-month period of
probation wherein he must comply with the conditions imposed in Maryland. 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); see also In re Ayres-Fountain, 955 A.2d 157, 160-61
(D.C. 2008) (“This court has established that in order for an attorney’s suspension
in this jurisdiction to run concurrently with any foreign discipline, the attorney must
promptly notify Bar Counsel of the foreign discipline.”).
PER CURIAM