Admissions Omissions Draw Stiff Rebuke

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has suspended an attorney for bar admission disclosure lapses

The Board on Professional Responsibility adopted Hearing Committee Six’s Report, including its findings that respondent, Scott Adkins, violated District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d), and its recommendation that respondent be suspended for three years with a requirement that he demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement. The Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent submitted an application for admission to this court’s bar by motion and a 2008 Supplemental Questionnaire that omitted required information. The omitted information included civil lawsuits filed by or against him, his criminal convictions, and his past overdue debts. In addition, the Committee determined that his filings contained specific misrepresentations concerning his criminal conviction arising from an alcohol-related hit-and-run accident. The Committee further found that respondent’s omissions and false statements precluded the Committee on Admissions from properly scrutinizing his fitness, resulting in his admission to the bar of this court. The Committee determined that these actions reflected on respondent’s honesty and fitness to practice law. In addition, the Committee determined that respondent provided false testimony at the hearing. Finally, in light of respondent’s dishonesty on his application and his false testimony at the hearing, the Committee determined that there was clear and convincing evidence to raise a serious doubt that respondent would practice ethically and competently in the future; therefore, it imposed a fitness requirement for reinstatement.

(Mike Frisch)