Negotiated Sanction For “Highly Offensive” Conduct

A single instance of criminal upskirt video or photography did not involve moral turpitude and a negotiated sanction of a stayed six-month suspension is warranted, per the recommendation of an ad hoc District of Columbia Hearing Committee

we approve the Petition, find the negotiated discipline of a six-month suspension, stayed, and six months of unsupervised probation during which Respondent must continue complying with the recommendations of his therapist and ensure that his therapist provides monthly reports to Disciplinary Counsel regarding Respondent’s compliance, is justified and recommend that it be imposed by the Court.

The Petition is linked here.

The attorney pled guilty to attempted voyeurism

On June 5, 2019, Respondent stood behind a woman on the escalator at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro station. Respondent placed his cell phone on top of his duffel bag and attempted to record images under the woman’s skirt. Respondent did not have the woman’s consent to take images under her skirt. Respondent’s actions were recorded on Metro security cameras.

A witness who knew the victim confronted Respondent on the escalator and alerted the victim of Respondent’s actions. After exiting the escalator, the victim confronted Respondent, asked to view the photos on his phone, and saw blurry photos or video that appeared to have been taken that day.

A notable prior case involved moral turpitude

Cross was found to have engaged in a crime of moral turpitude because he surreptitiously filmed another patron in a gym locker room, assaulted the victim in an attempt to recover the camera, and offered a bribe. Cross, Board Docket No. 12- BD-086, at 7-9. The Board noted in its report that the respondent’s surreptitious filming was premeditated, as he had altered a shaving kit to secret his camera. Id. at 19. It also noted that the respondent sought out sexual gratification at the expense of the complainant’s legitimate and reasonable privacy interest. Id. at 21. That said, it is not apparent from the Board Report that the surreptitious recording, by itself, would have constituted moral turpitude.

…Here, Respondent engaged in a single episode of surreptitious recording. His conduct, while intolerable, did not involve the physical assault or attempted bribery present in Cross and was not prolonged, as in Fuller. Thus, we recommend that the Court conclude that Respondent’s conduct did not involve moral turpitude on the facts.

Our coverage of the Cross case is linked here.

While concluding that the relevant factors favored the negotiated sanction

The first factor in that analysis – the seriousness of the misconduct – raises significant concerns for all three Hearing Committee members and is the only factor that gives the Hearing Committee hesitation regarding the negotiated sanction. All of us find the act at the heart of this matter to be highly offensive to say the least.

The matter now goes to the Court of Appeals. (Mike Frisch)