In re Alfred L. Rehder

 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. 01-BG-692 IN RE ALFRED L. REHDER, RESPONDENT. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (BDN 207-01) (Submitted September 16, 2002 Decided September 26, 2002) Before STEADMAN and REID, Associate Judges, and NEWMAN, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM: The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent Alfred L. Rehder by consent on May 4, 2001. Respondent had been under investigation for misappropriating client funds, and acknowledged that he could not successfully defend himself against charges predicated on the matters being investigated. After learning of respondent s disbarment, this court temporarily suspended him pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility ( the Board ). The Board has recommended that respondent be disbarred as identical reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board s recommendation. Respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Board and has not filed any opposition to the Board s recommendation. Given our limited scope of review and the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline, we adopt the Board s recommendation. See In re Thomas, 782 A.2d 761 (D.C. 2001); In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1995); In re Zilberberg, 612 A.2d 832, 2 834 (D.C. 1992); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Alfred L. Rehder is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. We again direct respondent s attention to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c). So ordered.

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.