Why Wait?

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals declined an attorney’s request to defer discipline pending the outcome of bar proceedings in California.

Rather, the court imposed disbarment in the original matter

The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that respondent John E. Rosenbaum had committed numerous disciplinary violations, including intentional misappropriation of entrusted funds, and recommending that Mr. Rosenbaum be disbarred, with reinstatement conditioned on the payment of restitution of $100,000. See generally In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) (disbarment is presumptive sanction in cases of intentional misappropriation). Specifically, the Hearing Committee found that, while acting as a fiduciary in an estate matter in Pennsylvania, Mr. Rosenbaum intentionally misappropriated entrusted funds, charged excessive fees, failed to respond to inquiries for information from the heirs, and interfered with the administration of justice.

Mr. Rosenbaum filed exceptions to the Hearing Committee’s Report but did not specifically challenge any of the Report’s findings or recommended sanctions. Rather, Mr. Rosenbaum informed the Board on Professional Responsibility that he had entered into a negotiated disciplinary agreement with the California Disciplinary Counsel based on the conduct at issue in this case. That agreement called for imposition of a three-year suspension, with all but eighteen months stayed subject to conditions, including restitution of over $100,000. Mr. Rosenbaum argued that the Board should defer this disciplinary matter until the California negotiated disciplinary agreement became final, and the Board should then impose reciprocal discipline.

The attorney did not file an exception to the disbarment recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility. (Mike Frisch)