In re: Jagjot S. Khandpur.

 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. 11-BG-1432 IN RE: JAGJOT S. KHANDPUR, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 438111 BEFORE: BDN2011-D304 BDN: 304-11 Oberly, Associate Judge, Terry and Steadman, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED - February 2, 2012) On consideration of the certified order of the Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, but with the ability to reapply for reinstatement sixty days after the suspension, see Attorney Grievance Com n of Maryland v. Khandpur, 25 A.3d 165 (Md., 2011), this court s November 22, 2011, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a sixty day suspension with fitness should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g), it is ORDERED that Jagjot S. Khandpur is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of sixty-days with reinstatement subject to a showing of fitness. See In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007), and In re Willingham, 900 A.2d 165 (D.C. 2006) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g). PER CURIAM

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.