Fitness Requirement Imposed

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ordered a 60-day suspension with reinstatement conditioned on proof of fitness of an attorney admitted in 1979 for misconduct found in representing a client in a New York sales tax matter

Mr. Brown’s conduct was serious. As the Board correctly observed, “[n]ot only did he fail to carry out the terms of the representation, but he hid that fact from Mr. Bahri, giving him false reassurances that his matter was in progress and failing to inform him of the DTF’s request for more information or his decision to abandon the case.”

Mr. Brown’s actions prejudiced Mr. Bahri. During the three years in which Mr. Bahri waited for Mr. Brown to seek to abate his tax payments, Mr. Bahri’s tax debt continued to grow. Had Mr. Brown provided competent and ethical representation, Mr. Bahri either would have reduced his tax debt or would have received a definitive answer as to what he owed so that he could start chipping away at his debt immediately.

Mr. Brown demonstrated an alarming level of dishonesty when he led Mr. Bahri to believe that he was completing tasks he had not yet started.

Also

Mr. Brown refuses to acknowledge any fault in his representation of Mr. Bahri. Instead, in his briefing before the Board and before this court, he refers to Mr. Bahri as a “thief.” Like the Board, we find it “deeply troubling to see a lawyer attack his own client baselessly merely to save his license. And of course, even a client who has committed a crime ought to have his phone calls returned.”

Finally, Mr. Brown did not present, and neither the Board nor the hearing committee found, any mitigating circumstances.

Each of these seven factors weighs in favor of imposing substantial discipline on Mr. Brown. Therefore, we agree with the Board that a sixty-day suspension is reasonable.

Fitness

the nature and circumstances of Mr. Brown’s conduct were serious, a fact that has been made clear to Mr. Brown by Mr. Bahri, the hearing committee, and the Board. Nonetheless, Mr. Brown refuses to recognize the seriousness of his misconduct and continues to shift blame to his client. Nothing about Mr. Brown’s conduct before the Board or this court suggests that his present legal work has improved over the course of the disciplinary-review process. To the extent that Mr. Brown’s briefing offers anything relevant to these factors, it is his statement that he is retiring and is simply continuing to serve previous clients, rather than actively seeking to bring in new business. Though Mr. Brown may now have only a limited client base, it is in the interest of the Bar and this court to ensure that those remaining clients receive competent and ethical legal services. Based on the record here, we are concerned that Mr. Brown “does not fully appreciate the ethical responsibilities and obligations that the practice of law requires.” In re Hallmark, 831 A.2d at 377.

The court panel consisted of Associate Judges Easterly, Beckwith and Deahl. (Mike Frisch)