What Me Hurry?

By now my view that the District of Columbia Bar’s “attorney discipline” system is pathetically slow and pro-lawyer is well known.

Examples abound but here’s one that falls squarely on the Board on Professional Responsibility.

The case involves an attorney named Kelly Cross and his conviction arising from an encounter in a D.C. sports club.

A hearing committee issued a report proposing a three-year suspension on May 28, 2015 (see my prior coverage here).

On August 19, 2009, Respondent used a video camera that he had hidden in his toiletry bag to surreptitiously record a patron at a local gym while that individual undressed in the gym’s locker room. Respondent was discovered, subsequently arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanor voyeurism in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3531(c). Bar Counsel charged that: (1) Respondent violated Rules 3.4(a) (obstructing another party’s access to evidence), 8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on honesty, fitness, or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice); and (2) Respondent was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-2503(a). Bar Counsel contends that Respondent’s crime requires disbarment under the statute. Respondent contended at the hearing that his actions, although criminal, were in essence based on a misunderstanding.

The Hearing Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c), but that the evidence is insufficient to find that he violated Rules 3.4(a) and 8.4(d) or that he committed a crime of moral turpitude within the meaning of D.C. Code § 11-2503(a). The Hearing Committee further finds that Respondent engaged in this   misconduct before, and that Respondent’s explanation for his misconduct to the Hearing Committee was false based on his demeanor, key contradictions in his testimony and the basic implausibility of his story. The Hearing Committee recommends, therefore, that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years with a fitness requirement as a condition of reinstatement.

Neither side saw fit to note any exception.

And the BPR has done nothing in the more than a year since the hearing committee report was filed.

Note that the conviction occurred in 2009 and Disciplinary Counsel filed charges in 2012.

It should not take over half a decade to decide if voyeurism involves moral turpitude on its facts, especially when Disciplinary Counsel concedes the point that here it did not.

There must be a better way. (Mike Frisch)