Band Width

A two-year suspension recommendation has been adopted and sent to the Court of Appeals for final action by the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility

Respondent was hired to apply for ETC [Eligible Telecommunication Carrier] status in three of the fifteen states awarded to LTD Broadband (California, Nebraska, and North Dakota) and both states awarded to Monster Broadband (Texas and Tennessee). FF 7-8, 13, 46. The Hearing Committee found that Respondent knew that Tennessee would decline jurisdiction, but he failed to make good-faith efforts to obtain a formal declination in time to meet the deadline. HC Rpt. at 25; FF 50-51. He also failed to tell both clients that he was not on track to timely obtain ETC status in four of the five states, which deprived them of the opportunity to reassign the state applications to other counsel and maintain their ability to seek a deadline waiver, if necessary. HC Rpt. at 27-29. And he gave affirmatively false assurances to his clients regarding the status of the ETC applications in those four states, including by (1) creating a false ndocket number for the California application to cover up the fact that he had not filed it in time, which caused another attorney working on ETC applications for LTD Broadband to repeat that false statement to the FCC, and (2) instructing Monster Broadband to repeat his false claim to the FCC that the Tennessee authority had declined jurisdiction by returning his application, when in truth he had never filed it. HC Rpt. at 28-32, 35-37; FF 15-17, 23-30, 32-33, 38-39, 56, 58-64. Both clients terminated Respondent and hired successor counsel to pursue ETC designations in the states previously handled by Respondent, but the FCC declined to extend the deadline for LTD Broadband’s applications. FF 44-45, 65-68.

For the reasons set forth in the Hearing Committee’s Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto and adopted and incorporated by reference, the Board concludes that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3(c), 1.4(a) and (b), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c) and recommends that he be suspended for two years.

(Mike Frisch)