# In Re Zilberberg

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 4, 1992 · 612 A.2d 832

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543147

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Mark H. ZILBERBERG, Respondent, a Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 4, 1992
- **Citations:** 612 A.2d 832; 1992 WL 186620
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Steadman
- **Judges:** Rogers, Terry, Steadman
- **Cited by:** 192 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/9543147

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a record must be augmented, ordinarily by a de novo hearing before the Hearing Committee, where an existing record from an original disciplining jurisdiction is insufficient for establishing a greater sanction is warranted
- recognizing a rebuttable presumption that the sanction imposed by this court in a reciprocal proceeding should be identical to that imposed by the original disciplining court

## Opinion text

STEADMAN, Associate Judge,
dissenting in part:
I agree with much of Judge Terry’s analysis, but take issue with the disposition. Here, the Virginia conduct may or may not have been such as to “warrant substantially different discipline in the District of Columbia.” One cannot tell with assurance from the facts related in the Virginia Board’s findings, but the Board’s perception that such might well be the case does not seem unwarranted. Accordingly, I would remand to the Board for further factual inquiry. I do not think that the presumption in favor of reciprocal discipline is so compelling that it applies even where the other jurisdiction’s proceedings leave significant doubt as to the extent of the attorney’s wrongful conduct.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9543147. Public record. Not legal advice.