Remiss

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility recommends disbarment of an attorney

Although Respondent’s disbarment is mandatory due to Respondent’s “at least” reckless misappropriation, we would be remiss if we failed to highlight Respondent’s breathtaking abandonment of his clients, and his duties as a lawyer. Respondent vanished on his clients, failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel, failed to appear before the Attorney/Client Arbitration Board, and to this point, has failed to appear in this disciplinary proceeding. Quite simply put, Respondent shows no interest in being a lawyer.

I would be remiss not to highlight the timeline

On July 18, 2021, Disciplinary Counsel served Respondent with a Specification of Charges (“Specification”). A pre-hearing conference was held on November 18, 2021. Respondent was not present, and no counsel appeared on his behalf. The evidentiary hearing in this matter was held on January 10, 2022, before this Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (the “Hearing Committee”). Disciplinary Counsel was represented at the hearing by Jelani C. Lowery, Esquire. Respondent was not present at the evidentiary hearing, and no counsel appeared on his behalf. Respondent has not participated in this disciplinary matter in any fashion.

The hearing committee filed its report on April 22, 2022. The board took 14 months to file its recommendation.

This is actually pretty fast for D.C.

Many jurisdictions avoid such delay by imposing default and waiving proof where an attorney abandons practice and fails to participate.

Many jurisdiction don’t have a two-step process to get a disciplinary matter before the deciding court.

The Court of Appeals should overrule this 1983  decision and adopt a workable default rule. (Mike Frisch)