In Re Karen H. Ross

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. 18-BG-1131 IN RE KAREN H. ROSS 2018 DDN 285 A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Reg. No. 499517 BEFORE: Easterly, Associate Judge, and Washington and Nebeker, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED – January 17, 2019) On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of Nevada suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for three years, all but six months stayed in favor of probation with conditions for a period of two years and six months; this court’s October 29, 2018, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent failed to file a response to the court’s show cause order but did file her D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit on November 28, 2018, it is ORDERED that Karen H. Ross is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for a period of three years nunc pro tunc to November 28, 2018. The suspension is stayed all but the first six months in favor of a two-year, six-month period of probation subject to the conditions imposed by the state of Nevada. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). PER CURIAM