In re Irwin R. Gilbert
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. 97-BG-1928 IN RE IRWIN R. GILBERT, RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Submitted September 30, 1998 Decided October 22, 1998) Before SCHWELB and REID, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: In this reciprocal discipline case, the Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that Irwin R. Gilbert, a member of our Bar, be suspended from practice for one year, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 1995, the date on which Gilbert advised this court of his suspension in New York. The proceedings in New York arose from Gilbert's unsolicited sexual advances to two female secretaries in his office and to two female clients. See In re Gilbert, 606 N.Y.S.2d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 1993). Bar Counsel has advised the court that he takes no exception to the Board's Report and Recommendation. likewise takes no exception. Gilbert's attorney has advised the court that he In light of the limited scope of our review under such circumstances, see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995), and given the presumption that, in reciprocal discipline cases, the discipline in the District of Columbia will be the same as that in the original disciplining 2 jurisdiction, see In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 834 (D.C. 1992), we follow the recommendation of the Board.1 Accordingly, Irwin R. Gilbert is hereby suspended from practice for a period of one year, nunc pro tunc to April 7, 1995. So ordered.2 1 We need not and do not decide whether this sanction would have been appropriate if this case had originated in the District of Columbia, or if one or both parties had contested the sanction recommended by the Board. 2 According to the Board's Report, Gilbert "has filed both the affidavits under In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982, 985 (D.C. 1983) and Rule XI, Section 14 (g)."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
