1. Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ("DCCA") err by "temporarily suspending" ("Mr. Klayman") from the practice of law pending the outcome of In re Klayman, 20-BG-583 (D.C.C.A.) (the "Sataki Matter") for twenty (20) months and then on September 15, 2022, further formally suspending Mr. Klayman for eighteen (18) months with a reinstatement provision, and therefore failing to grant Mr. Klayman "time served" after a twenty (20) months unconstitutional "temporary suspension" while the proceeding was pending?

Thus, the question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the DCCA to reduce Mr. Klayman's suspension to "time served" during the temporary suspension period.

Did the District of Columbia Court of Appeals err in suspending Larry Klayman from the practice of law?