||Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of thirty days with the suspension stayed, followed by a one-year period of supervised probation, with conditions agreed to by the parties. In re Mohammed Sadu Bah, 999 A.2d 21, 2010 WL 2604748 (D.C.). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a Notice and Order directing Respondent to inform the Court of any claim he had that the imposition of identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.
Respondent filed an answer challenging reciprocal discipline on the basis that his suspension in the District of Columbia had been stayed in its entirety, and therefore the D.C. suspension “was a suspension in name only,” as Respondent “was still in good standing with the D.C. Bar” and continued to practice law. ODC filed a reply that relied in part on a 2005 matter in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had entered an order of reciprocal discipline based upon another jurisdiction’s suspension order that had been stayed in its entirety, although in that matter the respondent had consented to the entry of a reciprocal order, at which point the Court proceeded to enter an uncontested final order without issuing a notice and order to show cause. ODC also argued that the plain language of Rule 216(a) encompasses stayed suspensions.
By Order dated January 19, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline, making its reciprocal Order “consistent with that imposed by Opinion and Order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.”