At The Top Of The Wish List

If I could be granted only one wish for the District of Columbia bar discipline system, the choice would be an easy one.

Some jurisdictions promptly and summarily suspend an attorney for failure to cooperate in responding to a complaint. The order may be vacated when the response is received.

The Indiana Supreme Court shows the way with an order entered on October 12

On August 21, 2017, in Case Nos. 49S00-1708-DI-536 and DI-537, this Court ordered Respondent to show cause why Respondent should not be immediately suspended from the practice of law in this state for failure to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation of grievance Nos. 17-1685 and 17-1166 respectively filed against Respondent. Each order required that Respondent show cause in writing within ten days of service of the order. Respondent has not submitted a response to the Court’s order to show cause in either case. In both cases, the Commission has filed a “Request for Ruling and to Tax Costs” asserting that Respondent still has not cooperated, to which Respondent has not responded.

Being duly advised, the Court ORDERS in DI-536 and DI-537 that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for noncooperation with the Commission, effective immediately. Pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(c)(3), the suspension in each case shall continue until the Executive Director of the Disciplinary Commission certifies to the Court that Respondent has cooperated fully with the investigation or until further order of this Court, provided there are no other suspensions then in effect. Respondent is ordered to fulfill the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Admission and Discipline Rule 23(10.1)(d), that Respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Commission $513.12 for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding in DI-536. The Court declines to separately order a reimbursement of costs in DI-537.

Such an order either commands the attorney’s attention or not. If not, the suspension order protects the public from future legitimate use of the license to practice.

And public protection is the ultimate goal of a self-regulating profession, right? (Mike Frisch)