Great News!
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has approved consent dispositions in two disciplinary matters.
One case involved a one-year consecutive suspension (to another sanction) for false statements on the D.C. Bar application.
The parties stipulated that this court’s previous sanction in In re Thomas-Bellamy, 97 A.3d 591 (D.C. 2014) (“Thomas-Bellamy I“), which imposed a six-month suspension, constituted an aggravating factor. Respondent presented mitigating circumstances that included the favourable resolution of her Maryland disciplinary cases, and the fact that she did not take on any District of Columbia clients and fully cooperated with Bar Counsel. As a result, Bar Counsel and respondent negotiated imposition of discipline in the form of a one-year suspension with a fitness requirement, to run consecutive to the sanction imposed in Thomas-Bellamy I.
The other matter involves an extended period of neglect from 2002 to 2006 that was a result of alcoholism.
Based upon respondent’s recognition that he neglected client matters, he admittedly violated seven rules of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct over that period. These violations all stemmed from respondent’s alcohol dependence, and therefore, the parties stipulated that respondent satisfied his burden of proof and he met the factors required to mitigate his sanction. See In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (D.C. 1987) (holding that alcoholism is a mitigating factor to be considered in determining discipline and identifying factors the court should consider when evaluating the appropriateness of the recommended discipline in disciplinary cases involving alcoholism). Additionally, the Committee considered respondent’s subsequent efforts to address his alcohol dependence and his cooperation with Bar Counsel as additional mitigating factors, which included participation in an independent medical examination to assess his recovery from alcohol abuse and ability to practice law. The parties stipulate respondent has been substantially rehabilitated after receiving treatment for alcoholism since 2011, poses no current risk to his clients; and that he is not a recidivist risk while he continues to manage his disorders through Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) and periodic counseling and continues to work in a well-staffed and automated work environment. As a result, Bar Counsel and respondent negotiated the imposition of discipline in the form of a four-month suspension, stayed in favor of an eighteen-month period of unsupervised probation with conditions. If Bar Counsel has probable cause to believe respondent violated any of the terms of his probation, he may seek revocation of probation. Further, if respondent changes employment and the parties cannot agree on any additional condition necessary to prevent a relapse, Bar Counsel may move to modify probation to include an appropriate additional condition.
Always a good day when a consent goes through. A great day when there are two approved consents. (Mike Frisch)