In re: Sharon A. Barton
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-1227 IN RE: SHERON A. BARTON, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 997851 BEFORE: BDN: 201-13 Fisher, Associate Judge, and Ferren and King, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED - March 6, 2014) On consideration of the certified order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland that accepted respondent s resignation in lieu of further discipline, with the right to apply for reinstatement after one year, subject to conditions, this court s November 21, 2013, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing her to show cause why the functional equivalent reciprocal discipline of a one-year suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, respondent s motion for reinstatement, the opposition thereto, respondent s second motion for reinstatement and attached exhibit, Bar Counsel s motion for leave to file the lodged late opposition, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to this court s order to show cause but filed a D.C. Bar R. XI, ยง14 (g) affidavit on January 8, 2014, it is ORDERED the Bar Counsel s motion for leave to file the lodged opposition is granted and the Clerk shall file the lodged opposition. It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent s motions for reinstatement are denied. It is No. 13-BG-1227 FURTHER ORDERED that Sheron A. Barton is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year nunc pro tunc to January 8, 2014. Reinstatement is subject to the conditions imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and contingent upon a showing of fitness. See, In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007). 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.
