Thursday, Thursday

If you are an aficionado of the opinions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, you already know that the Court always posts its opinions on Thursday morning.

Every Thursday fans flock to the Court’s website to see what’s new.

If you have been waiting for long overdue opinions in bar disciplinary matters two in particular stand out.

In In re Wallace, the Board on Professional Responsibility filed its report recommending a 30-day suspension on July 3, 2019.

In In re Wilde,  the Board filed its recommendation for disbarment on July 31, 2019.

The Wilde case involves a theft conviction in South Korea.

The case has been pending since 2009; the Respondent has been suspended based on the Board’s recommendation since September 30, 2019.

So, both matters have been before the Court for going on four years. Wilde will take fourteen years from soup to nuts. 

No case should take that long to decide. Such delay serves neither the public interest in reasonably swift resolution of these presumably important matters nor an accused attorney’s interest in having the accusations of misconduct resolved.

As the Court said in In re Williams, 513 A.2d 793 (1986)  in discussing an 18 month delay in prosecuting a remanded matter

We trust that this lapse will not be repeated. Tardy prosecution of potential offenders does a disservice to the attorney, to the affected clients, to the courts, and to society in general. An undue delay in prosecuting charges casts an unjustified shadow over an innocent attorney; it allows a guilty one to practice with impunity; it dims memories and so distorts the truth-finding process; it threatens to put the integrity of the courts at the mercy of an unethical practitioner; it does nothing to deter other members of the bar from misconduct; and it erodes public confidence in the bar’s announced intention to keep its own house in order. See The Florida Bar v. Randolph, 238 So. 2d 635, 638 (Fla.1970); Louisiana Bar Association v. Edwards, supra note 2, 387 So. 2d at 1139. The damaging effects of delay have been described in more picturesque language by the Florida Supreme Court: “During [an] unduly long period of investigation and prosecution, the accused lawyer is left roaming through the fields of Limbo where dwelt what Dante called `the praiseless and the blameless dead.'” The Florida Bar v. Randolph, supra, 238 So. 2d at 638-39.

Delays occur with distressing regularity at every stage of D.C. bar proceedings. 

The court should set an example in having matters decided with all deliberate speed. (Mike Frisch)