IN RE: ALI EBRAHIMZADEH, 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. 16-BG-88 IN RE: ALI EBRAHIMZADEH, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 1015773 BEFORE: Judges. DDN: 6-16 Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge, and Farrell and Nebeker, Senior ORDER (FILED - May 12, 2016) On consideration of the certified order of the Supreme Court of California suspending respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of two years, stayed in favor of a six-month suspension followed by a two-year probationary period with conditions, this court’s March 2, 2016, order suspending respondent pending further action of the court and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, respondent’s response stating that he did not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that on March 14, 2016, respondent filed an affidavit that satisfied the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) and the requirements of In re Goldberg, 460 A.2d 982 (D.C. 1983), wherein he stated that he voluntarily ceased practicing law on January 15, 2016, it is ORDERED that Ali Ebrahimzadeh is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years, stayed in favor of a sixmonth suspension, nunc pro tunc to January 15, 2016, to be followed by a two-year probationary period subject to the conditions imposed by the state of California. 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.