In re Alex Constantopes

 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. 17-BG-688 IN RE ALEX CONSTANTOPES 2017 DDN 75 An Administratively Suspended Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. BEFORE: 448866 Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge. ORDER (FILED – December 7, 2017) On consideration of the certified order disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of New York; this court’s July 21, 2017, order temporarily suspending respondent in this case and directing him to show cause why identical reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the motion of Disciplinary Counsel to late file its lodged statement regarding reciprocal discipline; and it appearing that respondent did not file a response to this court’s show cause order or the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit, it is ORDERED that the motion of Disciplinary Counsel is granted and the statement regarding reciprocal discipline is hereby filed. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Alex Constantopes is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that the presumption of identical discipline in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c) will prevail except in “rare” cases); In re Cole, 809 A.2d 1226, 1227 n.3 (D.C. 2002) (explaining that in unopposed reciprocal matters the “imposition of identical discipline should be close to automatic”). It is FURTHER ORDERED that for the purposes of reinstatement the time for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit. 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.