Dead Complainant Does Not End Bar Discipline Case

A  disbarment order was entered yesterday by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 

Respondent has been a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals since February 6, 1987. On March 15, 2006, in connection with an unrelated disciplinary matter involving dishonesty to the court, altering evidence, and criminal activity, the Board ordered respondent, who at that time was voluntarily not practicing law, to “give Bar Counsel 90-days’ advance notification of his intention to resume the practice of law . . . and to submit a medical report . . . demonstrating his fitness to resume practice” before doing so.

The attorney violated that order by practicing law. He was suspended for 18 months for the underlying violations.

The client he represented contrary to the above order had complained to Bar Counsel, which was the matter led to the disbarment.

Bar Counsel sought computer records but

As part of its investigation, Bar Counsel subpoenaed respondent’s computer so that a third party company could create a mirror image of the computer. Respondent filed a motion to quash the subpoena and while that motion was pending he gave the computer to Geeks on Call, a computer repair company. Geeks on Call informed respondent that the computer’s hard drive could not be repaired and respondent allowed the computer to be destroyed without notifying the Hearing Committee.

The court affirmed findings of reckless misappropriation and other offenses that merited disbarment.

The court rejected the rather novel suggestion that the disciplinary proceedings terminated with the death of the complainant. 

Respondent argues that the specification of charges should have been dismissed pursuant to Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 25 because it was based on a “nonexistent person,” referring to the fact that Shepard died a year and a half before the Committee issued its recommendation…

Rule 25 of the Superior Court’s Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to bar disciplinary proceedings and, in any event, the complainant is not a party for whom substitution would be required…

The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to redress a complainant’s harm but to determine whether a member of the bar has engaged in conduct that violates the rules of professional responsibility and calls into question whether the member should be permitted to practice law. Thus, Shepard’s death does not bear upon the Board’s determination of respondent’s misconduct.

The hearing committee report is linked here. 

Chief Judge Washington, Associate Judge Glickman and Senior Judge Belson were on the per curiam opinion. (Mike Frisch)