In re Kalish

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-336
IN RE WILLIAM KALISH
DDN: 2022-D176
An Administratively Suspended Member of the
Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Bar Registration No. 77503BEFORE: Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, Beckwith, Associate Judge, and Ruiz,
Senior Judge.
ORDER
(FILED— June 29, 2023)
On consideration of the certified order from the state of Florida permanently
revoking respondent’s law license by consent; this court’s May 3, 2023, order
suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show
cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed; and the
statement of Disciplinary Counsel wherein he requests that reinstatement also be
conditioned on respondent establishing that he has fulfilled his obligations to
reimburse the Florida Client Security Fund and make restitution; and it appearing
that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is
ORDERED that William Kalish is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia. Prior to filing a petition for reinstatement respondent
must show that he has complied with the restitution requirements and other payments
required by the state of Florida. 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); In re
Leone, 292 A.3d 761 (D.C. 2023) (disbarment is the functionally equivalent
discipline to a permanent revocation in the state of Florida); see also In re Murg,
686 A.2d 1039, 1040 (D.C. 1996) (requiring that respondent make restitution of
No. 23-BG-0336
$60,000, plus interest, in the original jurisdiction as a condition of reinstatement). It
is
FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Kalish’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
2