Win Win Win

The web page of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility has been improved to add hearing committee proceedings to its video library.

A hearing committee matter held on December 23 raises a significant issue of discipline by consent.

The procedure of a consent hearing is itself interesting, roughly following the inquiry required for entry of a criminal guilty plea. 

The prosecutor offers the stipulated facts and the attorney is asked under oath to admit the facts and alleged violations.

In In re Agwumezie, the respondent and Disciplinary Counsel have agreed to a three-year suspension with fitness for reckless misappropriation (among other violations) that would otherwise merit disbarment.

Thus, the public gets the protection of a prompt disposition that removes the attorney for a significant period and requires proof of fitness to resume practice.

Respondent gets to avoid disbarment ( which is in effect a five-year suspension with fitness) and is afforded a somewhat earlier opportunity to prove himself worthy of reinstatement.

Even if the parties had stipulated to these facts, without the consent procedure this process would have taken at least three years and likely much more. 

And the Respondent would be free to practice for most of that time. 

The hearing committee notes that the Court of Appeals recently remanded a similar proposed consent disposition to the Board for its input.

Deputy Disciplinary Counsel here explains the merits of resolving the matter as proposed.

She correctly notes that any misappropriation charge is fraught with uncertainty as to outcome but guaranteed to take years.

As proof of that assertion, see here.

As a strong proponent of consent discipline, I have my fingers crossed that the Hearing Committee and Court will adopt this negotiated disposition. (Mike Frisch)