A Small Claim

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility recommends a 60-day suspension for a false statement in a suit against a former client

This matter (“Carter II”) arises out of Respondent Jehan A. Carter’s statements about the status of a pending discipline matter against her (“Carter I”) in a small claims complaint she filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee found that Disciplinary Counsel proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made a knowingly false statement to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) when she asserted in her pleading that a former client’s bar complaint had been “dismissed because it was unsubstantiated.” Based on the same conduct, the Committee found that Respondent also violated Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Committee recommended a sanction of a six-month suspension, with three months stayed infavor of one year of unsupervised probation, for the two Rule violations.Disciplinary Counsel does not take exception to the Committee’s Report and Recommendation, but Respondent takes exception and argues that none of the charges were proven or, in the alternative, that a public censure is the more appropriate sanction.

Having considered the record evidence, including the witnesses’ hearing testimony and the Committee’s credibility findings, and the parties’ briefing and oral argument to the Board, we adopt the Committee’s finding that the Rule 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c) violations were proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on our review of comparable cases, we recommend a 60-day suspension for the misconduct at issue here, without a stay.

The underlying case

Beginning in 2016, Respondent represented Ms. Collier by attempting to negotiate a settlement in a defamation action that Ms. Collier had filed pro se against Steve Harvey and the Steve Harvey Show (“Harvey”), a television program in which Ms. Collier had appeared. FF 4. When the case did not settle, Respondent and Ms. Collier looked for local counsel who was licensed to practice law in California. FF 5. Ms. Collier hired Candice Bryner, Esquire, who entered an appearance in the defamation case, while Respondent simultaneously filed a motion to appear pro hac vice. FF 5.

The pro hac motion was denied.

The California court held a hearing and denied Respondent’s application to appear pro hac vice. During the hearing, the court voiced concerns about Respondent’s credibility and honesty with respect to the biography of Michael Smith on her website

Misconduct

While the February 25, 2022 petition for negotiated discipline was pending approval, Respondent filed a small claims action against Ms. Collier in D.C. Superior Court, seeking payment of approximately $3,000 in unpaid fees for Respondent’s work on the Harvey matter. FF 10, 16. In her April 14, 2022 Statement of Claim, Respondent pled under oath that Ms. Collier “filed a Bar complaint that was later dismissed because it was unsubstantiated.” FF 12, 21. When Respondent made this statement in her pleading, the petition for negotiated discipline in Carter I was pending but not yet resolved.

During the hearing in this matter, Respondent conceded that no one in the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ever told her that Carter I had been dismissed or that Ms. Collier’s bar complaint had been dismissed.

Proposed sanction

Here, Respondent’s knowing false statement was only in a single pleading, and she voluntarily withdrew the small claims action before serving Ms. Collier with that Statement of Claim. However, we cannot ignore the context in which the dishonesty was directed against a former client and made for the benefit of Respondent seeking to prevail in her fee suit. Respondent continues to show a lack of remorse for not making an accurate representation to the Superior Court about the status of the petition for negotiated discipline then-pending as a direct result of Ms. Collier’s bar complaint. For these reasons, we believe a 60-day suspension is consistent with the sanctions imposed in cases involving comparable misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)