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
IN RE C HANGHWUN C HO,
A Member of the Bar
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 441701)
On Report and Recommendation
of the Board on Professional Responsibility
(Submitted June 14, 2006
Decided June 22, 2006)
Before S CHWELB, R UIZ, and R EID, Associate Judges.
P ER C URIAM: On December 7, 2001, respondent Changhwun Cho, a member of our
Bar, was disbarred in Maryland by the Court of Appeals of that state.1 Cho had notice of the
proceeding in Maryland, but did not participate. Cho also failed to report his disbarment to
disciplinary authorities in this jurisdiction.
Reciprocal disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against Cho in this
jurisdiction. However, efforts by Bar Counsel and by the Executive Attorney of the Board
on Professional Responsibility to contact Cho at his addresses on file with the District of
Columbia Bar have been unsuccessful. “Given the Board’s numerous attempts to contact
respondent, and his failure to inform the bar of his new address as required by D.C. Bar R. II,
The hearing judge in Maryland found, inter alia, that Cho had abandoned his legal practice,
intentionally misappropriated funds on three occasions, and committed multiple acts of neglect and
failure to communicate with clients.
§ 2 (1), we conclude that respondent had sufficient notice of this proceeding for the purposes
of imposing reciprocal discipline.”
In re Powell, 860 A.2d 836, 837 (D.C. 2004)
On February 24, 2006, the Board issued a Report and Recommendation in which it
proposed that identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment be imposed on Cho in conformity
with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c). Cho has not excepted to the Board’s recommendation. Under
these circumstances, the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline “should be close to
automatic, with minimum review by both the Board and this court.” In re Cole, 809 A.2d
1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002); see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 1995). We
conclude that disbarment is indeed appropriate, and we therefore adopt the Board’s
recommendation. Accordingly, Changhwun Cho is hereby disbarred from the practice of law
in the District of Columbia.
Cho’s disbarment is effective immediately, but for purposes of reinstatement, it shall begin to
run upon the filing of the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). We direct Cho’s attention
to the provisions of that rule and of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).