In re Elizabeth M. Fischer

 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-692 IN RE ELIZABETH M. FISCHER A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Bar Registration No. 461184 BEFORE: 2016 DDN 168 Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge. ORDER (FILED – December 7, 2017) On consideration of the certified order from the state of Virginia revoking respondent’s license to practice law; this court’s July 10, 2017, order suspending respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing her to show cause why reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment should not be imposed, the response thereto, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, respondent’s motion for an extension of time to supplement her initial response with documentation; and it appearing that respondent failed to file her D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit; and it further appearing that respondent stipulated to the factual basis underlying her Virginia discipline and acknowledged her misconduct, it is ORDERED that Elizabeth M. Fischer is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); 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 respondent’s motion for an extension of time to supplement her response to this court’s order is denied as moot. It is No. 17-BG-692 FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c), dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to compliance with R. XI, § 14, including filing of the required 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.