IN RE: JAMES M. CUTSHAW, Respondent.

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-956 7/28/16 IN RE: JAMES M. CUTSHAW, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 437386 BEFORE: BDN: 105-13 Glickman, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and Farrell, Senior Judges. ORDER (FILED - July 28, 2016) On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent from the practice of law in the state of Louisiana for a period of thirty months, this court’s September 17, 2013, suspending respondent pending further order of the court, respondent’s D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit filed on June 13, 2014, this court’s April 19, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the functionallyequivalent reciprocal discipline of a thirty-month suspension with a fitness requirement should not be imposed, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s order, it is ORDERED that James M. Cutshaw is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty months, nunc pro tunc to June 13, 2014. Reinstatement is 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) (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.