In re: James C. Underhill, Jr.
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. 13-BG-38 IN RE: JAMES C. UNDERHILL, JR., Respondent. Bar Registration No. 297762 BEFORE: BDN: 388-12 Glickman, Associate Judge, and Terry and Steadman, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED - June 13, 2013) On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Colorado for a period of one-year and one-day, stayed in favor of a nine-month suspension and a two-year probationary period with conditions, this court s February 20, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why the reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and 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 but did file an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, ยง14 (g) on March 12, 2013, it is ORDERED that James C. Underhill, Jr., is suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one-year and one-day, stayed in favor of a nine-month suspension and a two-year probationary period subject to the conditions imposed by the state of Colorado, nunc pro tunc to March 12, 2013. See In re Mance, 980 A.2d 1196 (D.C. 2009) (established prospective rule that a flat fee remains the client s property until earned and failure to hold those funds in trust constitutes negligent misappropriation of funds); see also, In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and 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
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.
