Still Waiting After All These Years

This is the time of the year when the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility tries to clear its docket and move cases along to their conclusion.

The board has released a number of reports over the past week or so, some of which have been blog-worthy. 

But still to come – hopefully soon – is the next stage in the drama of Judge Roy Pearson, famed for suing a cleaners over a pair of pants.

The underlying civil case was concluded in 2007. 

In June 2016, a hearing committee concluded

the Hearing Committee respectfully recommends that the Board find that Disciplinary Counsel has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 3.1 and 8.4(d) and that Disciplinary Counsel has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rule 3.2(a). The Hearing Committee further recommends that Respondent be suspended for 30 days, that the suspension be stayed, that the stay be conditioned upon the successful completion of a period of probation of two years during which Respondent shall not make assertions in litigation unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so that is not frivolous and shall not be sanctioned by a court for litigation-related conduct; and that any clients Respondent represents in litigation during the period of his probation be informed of the fact of his probation. If Respondent appears as lead counsel in a litigated matter, he should consider associating with other counsel.

The board received briefs and heard oral argument in the matter.

Our coverage of the hearing committee report noted that the bar investigation opened in 2007 and lay fallow for many years for reasons that the record does not address. (Mike Frisch)