They May Still Take His Freedom

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals issues its opinions on Thursdays (although did not this week, I assume, out of respect for the funeral of President Carter).

As one who has previously been critical of delays in the disciplinary system, I cannot help but note a case where the report of the Board on Professional Responsibility was filed on July 3, 2019 and oral argument was conducted on June 3, 2020.

Since then, crickets.

The  case

In re William Wallace reviews a board report that proposes a 30-day suspension

we find that Respondent’s violation of Rule 1.16(d) requires a suspension and his intentionally false testimony and failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct warrants an actual suspension instead of one stayed in favor of probation. As the Board recently explained in In re Wilson, Board Docket No. 15-BD-064, at 3 (BPR Jan. 17, 2019), these “are sufficiently aggravating to require that Respondent serve the thirty-day suspension.” But as the Court allowed in In re Avery, 189 A.3d 715, 721-22 (D.C. 2018) (per curiam) and the Board recommended in Wilson, we recommend that the 30-day period of suspension shall begin on a date Respondent selects and reports in advance to Disciplinary Counsel within ninety days after the Court’s suspension order, provided that he has by that date filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14(g).

Obviously, this one has slipped through the cracks somehow. 

The web page of the D.C. Bar states that he is in good standing with membership type designated as “inactive.”

It seems to me that it is profoundly unfair to both the Respondent and the public to leave this matter unresolved for such an extended period of time. (Mike Frisch)