A Brief But Unpersuasive Explanation
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ordered the interim suspension of a criminal defense attorney based on sanctions imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The attorney had failed to file a brief and joint appendix, explaining
[his] email message stated that he still intended to file the brief on Monday, July 28, 2014, and requested that any order be delayed until then. Allenbaugh also apologized for the constant delays but attributed them to constant changes in sentencing guidelines law and policy and stated that, in retrospect, he should have requested a continuance pending final action by the Sentencing Commission on amendments affecting the appeal. The Clerk responded that it was out of her hands. The brief and appendix were not filed.
The web page of the attorney notes
Mr. Allenbaugh is a co-editor of Sentencing, Sanctions, and Corrections: Federal and State Law, Policy, and Practice (2d ed., Foundation Press, 2002), and is also a recipient of the prestigious Bender Award while serving as Adjunct Professor of Business Ethics and Philosophy at George Washington University.
Prior to entering private practice, Mr. Allenbaugh served as Staff Attorney for the U.S. Sentencing Commission where he was assigned to the Economic Crimes Policy Team and the Terrorism Team. Mr. Allenbaugh has published numerous articles on sentencing policy and criminal justice, and is quoted frequently in the national press. Mr. Allenbaugh’s articles are frequently published on Writ and on CNN.COM.
The Fourth Circuit ordered a suspension for two years and a fine for the attorney’s “persistent failure to represent his client and comply with orders of the Court, and his failure to respond to…orders to show cause…” in a criminal appeal.
The court’s Standing Panel had struck his appointment as counsel in the case as well as his membership on the CJA panel.
Reciprocal state bar cases deriving from federal court orders (where procedures tend to be far more summary in nature than state bar discipline matters) can be tricky.
The idea that D.C. would impose a two-year suspension for a single blown brief is beyond ludicrous.
For instance, there is this case summary from the web page of the D.C. Bar in the case of In Re James Robertson (which I handled for Bar Counsel)
Date of Action: May 15, 1992
Type of action: Court action
- Summary of Action: In this reciprocal matter, the court publicly censured Robertson based on his suspension from practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for neglect of three appellate cases and his violation of the Fourth Circuit’s internal operating procedures.
Since the Robertson decision, the court has amended its reciprocal procedures. If the attorney desires to have the sanction reduced, he must respond to the court’s show cause order.
If he does so, it is quite likely that a non-suspensory sanction will result even though he will be interim suspended in D.C. unless the court modifies its order. (Mike Frisch)