Backburned

An Ad hoc District of  Columbia Hearing Committee recommends a stayed suspension of a solo practitioner for misconduct in a court-appointed criminal matter.

Here, Respondent conceded that, from his appointment on April 2, 2014 to his removal on July 10, 2015, he did not take any steps necessary “to advance Mr. Thompson’s case or pursue his legal interests.” Stip. 9. As he admitted in his testimony, he put the case on a “backburner” and neglected it…

Respondent violated Rules 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) by initiating, over the entire course of his representation of Mr. Thompson, only one substantive and two nonsubstantive communications with his client, while ignoring Mr. Thompson’s repeated attempts to contact him.

Bad enough but

Respondent’s misrepresentations to Mr. Thompson and the court regarding his supposed efforts to obtain the draft § 23-110 motion from Ms. Wicks violated Rule 8.4(c)…

Respondent admits that he falsely told the court that “both of us [Mr. Thompson and Respondent] were waiting for her [Ms. Wicks] to complete a draft,  23-110 petition,” when in fact Respondent had told Ms. Wicks not to send him the draft, and thus knew that his statement to the court was false. FF 30. This establishes a violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1).

The Hearing Committee rejected the request of Disciplinary Counsel for a stayed fitness requirement.

The case is In re Cary Clennon. (Mike Frisch)