Expert Opinions Did Not Violate Rights

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has disbarred an attorney

In this bar disciplinary matter, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) concluded in a Report and Recommendation, following review of a Report and Recommendation by an Ad Hoc Hearing Committee (“Committee”), that Respondent Anitha W. Johnson violated over 20 District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with five separate client matters over the course of seven years and recommended that she be disbarred for “flagrant dishonesty and indifference to her clients.” Ms. Johnson filed exceptions to the Board Report and Recommendation in this court. After Ms. Johnson filed her exceptions, and after considering Ms. Johnson’s response to an order to show cause, this court suspended Ms. Johnson from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g).

Ms. Johnson argues that the consideration of expert testimony at her Committee hearing deprived her of the right to a fair hearing, challenges the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and contests the Board’s recommended sanction of disbarment. We conclude that Ms. Johnson was not deprived of her right to a fair hearing; that the facts found by the Committee and upheld by the Board are supported by substantial evidence of record; that Ms. Johnson committed the charged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and that the recommended sanction is warranted based on Ms. Johnson’s flagrant dishonesty. We therefore order that Ms. Johnson is disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction.

Consideration of expert testimony

In this court, Ms. Johnson renews her claim about insufficient disclosures and also argues that the experts improperly testified about an ultimate issue, namely, the existence of rule violations. We discern no error. Whether evidence—including expert testimony—is relevant and admissible under Board Rule 11.3 is “within the ambit of the Hearing Committee’s discretion,” In re Speights, 173 A.3d 96, 102 (D.C. 2017) (per curiam), and is not governed by “the rules of evidence applicable in other proceedings,” id. Expert testimony regarding standards of care is not uncommon in disciplinary hearings. See, e.g., id. at 100-02; In re Outlaw, 917 A.2d 684, 686 (D.C. 2007) (per curiam); In re Fair, 780 A.2d 1106, 1111-12 (D.C. 2001).

The record reflects that the experts here provided opinion testimony about the applicable standards of care, not conclusions about Ms. Johnson’s violations of Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, as Ms. Johnson concedes, the Board Rules impose no requirements regarding expert disclosures, and, in any event, Disciplinary Counsel disclosed its expert witnesses’ identities, subject areas, and contact information before the hearing. Ms. Johnson suffered no prejudice, as she was permitted to question the experts regarding their qualifications and expertise on cross-examination.

Sanction

We conclude that disbarment is warranted here based on Ms. Johnson’s repeated and pervasive dishonesty over seven years, both in the representation of clients and before Disciplinary Counsel and the Committee…

Moreover, Ms. Johnson’s repeated dishonesty was accompanied by an appalling level of indifference to her clients, consistent incompetence that prejudiced her clients, a revelation of client confidences, financial mismanagement, and a lack of remorse and acknowledgement of responsibility.

(Mike Frisch)