It’s a good day when findings of “flagrant dishonesty” can get one disbarred in the District of Columbia per this recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

the Board adopts the Hearing Committee’s factual findings, as supported by substantial evidence in the record, and concurs with the legal conclusions as to the Rule violations. However, for the reasons stated below, the Board departs from the Committee’s sanction analysis and recommends that Respondent be disbarred for his “flagrant dishonesty” – that is, his repeated dishonesty to his clients, the South Carolina Probate Court, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the Hearing Committee.

The underlying representation involved a wrongful death claim in South Carolina, where the attorney is not admitted. He blamed his deceased local counsel for the misconduct.

The husband of the deceased was incarcerated and the attorney met with him in South Carolina

The Hearing Committee found that Mr. Reid testified credibly that (1) Respondent told him he had handled other medical malpractice actions; (2) Respondent did not tell him he was not licensed to practice law in South Carolina; and (3) Respondent did not inform him that he could not appear in court without associating with an attorney who was a member of the South Carolina Bar. FF 30. The Committee also found that Respondent’s testimony, denying that he failed to inform Mr. Reid that he was not licensed in South Carolina, was intentionally false. FF 31. Mr. Reid and his mother did not learn that Respondent was not licensed to practice law in South Carolina until Mr. Reid filed an attorney discipline complaint with the South Carolina Bar in October 2014.

Sanction

we cannot overlook the number of false statements made before this Hearing Committee and the repetitive nature of Respondent’s dishonesty in whatever situation he found himself. See, e.g., In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458, 464-65 (D.C. 1994) (per curiam) (“repetitive nature” of the dishonesty where respondent “has chosen to use deceit and misrepresentation as a principal means of dealing with the legal system”). We view his false testimony as equal to that of the respondent in Goffe. Here, Respondent chose to fabricate answers when confronted by the Probate Court’s request for information and when he realized the seriousness of Disciplinary Counsel’s investigation…

I prosecuted the Goffe case, where we prevailed in objection to the board’s proposed three-year suspension.