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
Nos. 08-BG-468 & 08-BG-667
IN RE O THA M. J ACKSON, R ESPONDENT.
A Member of the Bar of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
(Bar Registration No. 248393)
On Report and Recommendation of the
Board on Professional Responsibility
(BDN 187-08 & 284-08)
(Submitted July 21, 2009
Decided September 3, 2009)
Before W ASHINGTON, Chief Judge, and P RYOR and K ERN, Senior Judges.
P ER C URIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) recommends that
respondent, Otha M. Jackson, be disbarred pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503 (a) (2001),
because he was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371, and mail fraud (aiding and abetting), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and
1342 in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Ohio. Mail fraud and
wire fraud are both crimes of moral turpitude per se, see In re Leffler, 940 A.2d 105, 106
(D.C. 2007) (per curiam); thus respondent’s conviction of mail fraud constitutes a violation
of the moral turpitude standard requiring respondent’s disbarment under the statute.
Accordingly, we accept the Board’s unopposed recommendation that respondent be disbarred
pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503 (a).
Because this resolves the matter, it is unnecessary to determine whether reciprocal
discipline should be imposed in light of respondent’s disbarment by the State of Ohio
following his convictions. See in re Sugarman, 677 A.2d 1049, 1050 (D.C. 1996) (per
curiam). Thus, the reciprocal action is dismissed as moot.
Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia
effective immediately. For purposes of reinstatement, the period of respondent’s disbarment
shall be deemed to commence on the day respondent files an affidavit in compliance with
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).1 See in re Slosberg, 650 A.2d 1329, 1331-33 ((D.C. 1994).
We note that respondent has previously filed two 14 (g) affidavits with various
deficiencies. Respondent must file an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of
D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 in order to seek reinstatement. The affidavit must list, inter alia, all
other state and federal jurisdictions and administrative agencies to which respondent has been
admitted to practice and the residence or other address of the respondent to which
communications can be directed. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g).