Suspension With Fitness Proposed For License Renewal Statements

A District of Columbia Hearing Committee has found misconduct and recommended a nine-month suspension with proof of fitness

Disciplinary Counsel alleges that, when seeking to reactivate his membership in the bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (“District of Maryland”), Respondent falsely denied that he had previously been disciplined by a court. In particular, Disciplinary Counsel alleges that Respondent was disciplined by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) in 2015, by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in 2019, and by the D.C. Circuit in 2021. Disciplinary Counsel further alleges that Respondent falsely denied those instances of discipline in connection with the reactivation requests he submitted to the District of Maryland in 2016, 2022, and 2023.

Disciplinary Counsel asserts that by omitting this information from his 2016, 2022, and 2023 reactivation applications, Respondent violated four Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct (“Maryland Rule” or “Rule”)): Rule 19- 303.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal); Rule 19- 308.1(a) (knowingly making a false statement in connection with a bar admission); Rule 19-308.4(c) (engaging in dishonesty); and Rule 19-308.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Disciplinary Counsel contends that as a result of the four alleged Rule violations, Respondent should be suspended for nine months with the requirement to prove his fitness to practice prior to reinstatement.

Respondent denies that he violated any Rules, and argues that any errors on his reactivation applications were mistakes, not knowing false statements.

As set forth below, the Hearing Committee finds that Disciplinary Counsel has proven all four Rule violations by clear and convincing evidence, and recommends to the Board that Respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for nine months with the requirement that he prove his fitness to practice prior to reinstatement.

His explanations were rejected

On the whole, Respondent’s testimony reflects an attempt to avoid responsibility for his own false statements and his failure to comply with the District of Maryland’s clear and unambiguous requirement for “complete truthfulness” in its applications for reactivation.

Fitness

We find that all five factors provide clear and convicing [sic] evidence of a serious doubt of Respondent’s fitness to practice law: Respondent knowingly engaged in dishonesty with a court, leaving it unable to fully assess his fitness to practice before it; Respondent continues to maintain that, if anything, he made a simple mistake and blames others for the circumstances in which he finds himself; Respondent seemingly has learned nothing from the prior discipline imposed on him and he has presented no evidence that he has taken steps to remedy his past wrongs or to prevent future ones; at present, Respondent’s character for truthfulness is in question, given his lack of credibility before the Hearing Committee; and until Respondent demonstrates that he will conduct himself before the courts with full honesty and transparency, he should not be permitted to engage in the practice of law.

(Mike Frisch)