Ethical Obligations Of Local Counsel

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility affirmed findings of misconduct but rejected an ad hoc hearing committee’s proposed board reprimand.

Rather, the board favors a stayed 30 day suspension with six months of unsupervised probation.

Respondent’s intentional neglect and failure to communicate with Ms. Norris are sufficiently serious to warrant a 30-day suspension. Respondent, in his disagreement with Mr. Stewart over the filing of an extension to oppose the renewed motion to dismiss, lost sight of his paramount obligation to his client. As a result, he allowed the deadline to pass without filing an opposition or a motion for an extension of time in which to do so. As the only attorney with knowledge that the deadline had passed, and without having taken any action to protect Ms. Norris, Respondent bore full responsibility for the subsequent dismissal of her complaint. Even then, Respondent failed to file a motion for reconsideration or to take any other action to protect his client…

Respondent’s utter lack of recognition of his duty to his client is further aggravated by his steadfast refusal in this disciplinary proceeding to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct or the violation of his duty to Ms. Norris. Even during oral argument before the Board, Respondent persisted in denying any wrongdoing, asserting that Mr. Stewart alone was responsible for the dismissal of Ms. Norris’s complaint.

The attorney served as local counsel to a New Jersey attorney (the above-mentioned Mr. Stewart) in a federal district court action in the District of Columbia.

The board rejected the suggestion that his “local counsel” status absolved him of ethical obligations

an attorney’s ethical responsibilities are not limited when acting as local counsel, as Respondent contends. Respondent entered into an attorney-client relationship with Ms. Norris, and thus was obligated to comply fully with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notably, the attorney had argued that reprimand was unduly harsh and that the matter should be dismissed.

Bar Counsel had not excepted to the proposed reprimand but favored a public censure before the board.

In D.C., the board can reprimand but only the Court of Appeals can censure, suspend, disbar or order probation. 

The case is In re Ernest Francis. It can be accessed at this link.

Board member Jason Carter wrote a good report, particularly in the sanction analysis.

 I say that because he relies on a number of my old cases. (Mike Frisch)