# In re Statham

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · January 30, 2003 · 815 A.2d 787

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959299

## Case

- **Full name:** In re Michael V. STATHAM, A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 815 A.2d 787; 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 17; 2003 WL 193728
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Farrell, Reid, Wagner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959299

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent Michael V. Statham by consent on October 9, 2001. In the Maryland proceeding, respondent conceded that he could not successfully defend himself against charges that he had intentionally misappropriated funds; specifically, those charges alleged that, in six instances, Stat-ham had deposited into his personal account checks given to his firm as retainers or payment for legal services.
Upon learning of respondent’s disbarment, this court temporarily suspended respondent pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”). The Board has recommended that respondent be disbarred as reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board’s recommendation. Respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Board and has not filed any opposition to the Board’s recommendation.
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction in nearly all cases of intentional misappropriation. In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190 (D.C.1990) (en banc). Given the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline 1 and our limited scope of review in uncontested discipline cases, 2 we adopt the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Michael V. Statham is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We note that respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). We again direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his *788 eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(c).
So ordered.
. In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C.1992).
. In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C.1995); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4959299. Public record. Not legal advice.