Stay (Just A Little Bit Longer)

The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility rejected the position of Disciplinary Counsel that failure to participate in the hearing precludes the imposition of a fully stayed suspension

We now turn to Disciplinary Counsel’s two objections regarding the Committee’s sanction analysis. Disciplinary Counsel contends first, that the Committee incorrectly decided that Respondentís conduct was less serious than that of the respondents in In re Cole and In re Bernstein, and second, that the Committee improperly recommended a stayed suspension when Respondent had not shown remorse and did not participate in the hearing. The Committee explained that an entirely stayed suspension was warranted as an “intermediate” sanction due to Respondent’s lack of prior discipline and the fact that the proven misconduct was less serious in nature than prior cases where a thirty-day suspension was imposed…

Although Respondent’s misconduct was less serious than cases where a thirty-day suspension was imposed, we find that the Hearing Committee did not err in recommending a thirty-day suspension, fully stayed in favor of probation, which would mean that Respondent’s ability to practice law would not be interrupted so long as he completes eight hours of CLE (at least two hours on ethics) preapproved by Disciplinary Counsel. For Respondentís violations of Rules 1.1(a) and (b) and 1.3(a), a non-suspensory sanction would have been within range for sanctions in comparable cases.

Stay

we do not agree with Disciplinary Counsel’s interpretation of Dobbie, see ODC Br. at 4-5, as barring a stay under the circumstances of this case. See also In re Chapman, 962 A.2d 922, 927 (D.C. 2009) (per curiam) (Court staying thirty days of a sixty-day suspension in favor of a one-year period of probation even though the respondent “refused to take responsibility or show any remorse for his misconduct” and was ‘deliberately dishonest in his dealings with [Disciplinary] Counsel”). Although Respondent’s participation in the disciplinary process in this matter was wanting, this is also not a situation where a respondent failed entirely to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry letter or request for documents or ignored completely a Board Order to comply with Disciplinary Counsel’s request for a response to the allegations.

(Mike Frisch)