In an opinion fairly reeking of antipathy for Disciplinary Counsel, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility approved a hearing committee recommendation for an informal admonition to attorney found to have violated the duty to communicate.

The board squarely rejected a plea for non-public discipline

Despite Respondent’s assertion that there should be private discipline, there is none.  See In re Dunietz, 687 A.2d 206, 210-11 (D.C. 1996) (private sanctionb“would be contrary to the public interest,” and once petition filed or informal admonition has been issued, “promoting confidence in the discipline system counsels against confidential discipline”).

In cases involving allegations of minor misconduct, Disciplinary Counsel may offer a respondent a confidential “diversion” program designed to remedy the alleged misconduct. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8.1. Diversion is offered “in Disciplinary  Counsel’s sole discretion.” D.C. Bar R. XI, § 8.1(c) (emphasis added) (Disciplinary Counsel may, in its “sole discretion, offer to any attorney being investigated for misconduct the option of entering a diversion program in lieu of other procedures available to Disciplinary Counsel.”). Neither hearing committees nor the Board—nor even the Court—has the authority to require Disciplinary Counsel to offer diversion to any respondent. Thus, because Respondent requests that the Board take an action that it cannot do, the Board rejects Respondent’s request.