D.C. Court Accepts Consent Disposition In Bar Discipline Case

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has approved a consent disposition in a matter involving multiple neglects and cover up misrepresentations

In this disciplinary matter, Hearing Committee Number Seven (“Committee”) recommends approval of an amended petition for negotiated attorney discipline. The violations stem from respondent [ ] ’s neglect in eight separate personal injury cases and misrepresentations made to conceal her neglect that occurred during the years 2005-2007.

The matter had been resolved by an agreement between the attorney and the Office of Bar Counsel

Bar Counsel and respondent negotiated imposition of discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension, stayed in favor of one-year unsupervised probation with conditions including that respondent not be the subject of another disciplinary action and complete a continuing legal education course approved by Bar Counsel. If respondent fails to comply with these and other conditions of her probation, her probation will be revoked, the ninety-day suspension imposed, and respondent must demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement.

The court approved the consent

We agree with the [Hearing] Committee’s recommendation because it properly applied D.C. Bar R. XI, 12.1 (c) to arrive at this conclusion, and we find no error in the Committee’s determination. Furthermore, the Committee considered the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, including respondent’s multiple mental and physical stressors that led to major depression and caused the misconduct, respondent taking full responsibility for her actions, the lack of any prior disciplinary complaints, the short period of time she had been licensed, and her full cooperation with Bar Counsel. The Committee also considered that, since the time period in question, respondent has achieved success in a different practice setting, and has had no difficulties with her job and no further disciplinary complaints. Based upon the record before the court, the negotiated discipline of a ninety-day suspension from the practice of law suspended in favor of one-year unsupervised probation is not unduly lenient and is supported by discipline imposed by this court for similar actions with aggravating circumstances.

Bravo! Any accepted consent is a major reason to celebrate.

Here, this is a reasonable resolution of a case that would otherwise take many years and considerable resources to resolve.

That is particularly appropriate given that the misconduct is already eight years in the past.

Results like this should be the rule in D.C. rather than the exception.

The excellent Hearing Committee report is posted on the Bar’s web page and finds significant mitigation

There are also stipulated mitigating circumstances that should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the agreed upon sanction. Respondent has shown credible remorse and taken responsibility for her misconduct. She has cooperated fully with Bar Counsel’s investigation. She has no prior disciplinary complaints, nor has she been the subject of other disciplinary inquiries. She had only been an attorney for a short period of time when she engaged in the misconduct. She was given multiple duties at the firm without adequate supervision. She suffered from a confluence of multiple health and family crises that caused her misconduct. As will be more fully discussed, the parties have stipulated and the opinions of the examining psychiatrists support the applicability of Kersey mitigation here, which includes that Respondent has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that her major depression substantially affected her misconduct.

The amended petition was filed in January 2015. The committee report was filed March 10.  The case is now concluded.

That is how consent discipline is supposed to work. (Mike Frisch)