In re: Tawana D. Shephard

ORDER PER CURIAM. On consideration of the certified opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Joseph, 422 Md. 670, 31 A.3d 137 (2011), this court’s October 8, 2015, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be. imposed, the response of respondent, the statement of Bar Counsel regarding reciprocal discipline, the lodged reply .of respondent, and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit on October 29, 2015, it is • ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the lodged reply of respondent. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Joel D. Joseph is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction, nunc pro tunc to October 29, 2015. To the extent respondent challenges imposition of reciprocal discipline by attempting to re-litigate the discipline imposed by the state of Maryland, such a challenge is improper in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, see In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C.2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceed *644 ings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”)- Further, to the extent that respondent argues that there was a deficiency of evidence to support the originating jurisdiction’s findings that he engaged in misrepresentations as to his residence when he filed a motion to appear pro hac vice, he was permitted to submit evidence and argument in the originating jurisdiction on why he should not be disbarred.