Swift Action In D.C. Bar Case

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility adopted a hearing committee recommendation in a case involving an attorney’s neglect of seven appointed appellate matters.

In each of these cases, the Court issued multiple orders directing Respondent to file the brief and appendix within the requisite time. Respondent did not comply with these deadlines, and the Court vacated Respondent’s appointment as counsel for the appellants and directed Respondent to transmit all documents pertaining to the appeal to successor counsel within 20 days. Respondent was aware that he was appointed as counsel in each of the seven cases, and he received notice of the Court’s orders instructing him to file briefs. Respondent promptly turned over the client files for each of the seven cases to each successor counsel.

Sanction

we agree with the Hearing Committee’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and sanction recommendation, and we recommend that Respondent be suspended for six months, with all but sixty (60) days stayed in favor of one year of probation subject to the conditions recommended by the Hearing Committee.

Mitigation

Before the Hearing Committee, Respondent did not contest that he engaged in misconduct, and offered evidence in mitigation of sanction. In mitigation, the Hearing Committee found that Respondent was overwhelmed by his workload and personal difficulties that had arisen during the relevant time period. Respondent testified credibly that, at the time of the misconduct, he was experiencing marital problems, stress from caring for his young children, and sadness following the death of a close friend. At the time, Respondent rationalized his neglect with the belief he would be able to eventually catch up on his to-do list. Respondent did not miss any deadlines in any cases other than the seven appellate matters. Respondent testified that he appropriately handled his appellate cases until the “problematic period” that began in March 2012.

Respondent voluntarily took a number of credible and necessary steps to address the factors that contributed to his actions…

It is noteworthy that the hearing committee report was filed on December 28, 2016. In the absence of objections from either party, the Board adopted the findings and issued its report in roughly six weeks.

This is another in a series of recent signs of real progress in moving disciplinary matters along in D.C.

Kudos to the author of the report, Board member (and non-attorney) David Bernstein.

There may well be a direct causal link between these glimmers of hope and a recent change of leadership in the Board’s Executive Office. 

The case is In re Jejomar Untalan and can be found at this link. (Mike Frisch)