Consent Sanction For Conflict

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has approved a consent sanction of a stayed 30-day suspension for a conflict of interest in a criminal matter

the Petition states that Respondent violated Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b)(4), in that without her client’s informed consent, Respondent represented Mr. Scurry in his Section 2255 proceeding and subsequent appeal notwithstanding the fact that her professional judgment was or reasonably could have been adversely affected by her own interests. The stipulated facts support Respondent’s admission that she violated Rule 1.7(b)(4) in that Respondent agreed, in 2016, to represent Scurry by filing a Section 2255 motion without discussing with Scurry the fact that Scurry’s 2012 guilty plea, which was negotiated by Respondent and her law partner, included only a limited right to appeal, which could form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Respondent similarly did not remind Scurry about his 2013 motion requesting new counsel or his stated reasons for the request; failure to engage in such a discussion with Scurry, and to obtain his informed consent to a new representation, was a violation of Rule 1.7(b)(4). Petition at 6.

These violations were compounded when Respondent agreed to represent Scurry in an appeal from the denial of his Section 2255 motion. The Petition further states that Respondent violated D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), in that she engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice. The stipulated facts support Respondent’s admission that she violated Rule 8.4(d) because, due to her conflicted representation of Mr. Scurry, the D.C. Circuit was forced to remand the matter to the district court for the appointment of conflict-free counsel to represent Scurry in the Section 2255 proceedings.

Good news: This report was filed within seven weeks of the limited hearing. (Mike Frisch)