IN RE: RICHARD M. GUMMERE, 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 5/12/16 No. 16-BG-182 IN RE: RICHARD M. GUMMERE, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 421206 BEFORE: Judges. DDN: 34-16 Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Farrell and Nebeker, Senior ORDER (FILED - May 12, 2016) On consideration of the certified order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction by consent, this court’s March 16, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why the reciprocal discipline of disbarment should not be imposed, the statement of respondent wherein he states he does not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file an affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g), it is ORDERED that Richard M. Gummere is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. 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). It is FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period of disbarment 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.
